Talk:Martin Luther/Archive 11

Section Luther's excommunication

Text before recent editing

First printed edition of Exsurge Domine.

On June 15, 1520, the Pope warned Martin Luther with the papal bull Exsurge Domine that he risked excommunication unless he recanted 41 points of doctrine culled from his writings within 60 days. In October 1520, at the instance of Miltitz, Luther sent his On the Freedom of a Christian to the pope, adding the significant phrase: "I submit to no laws of interpreting the word of God." Meanwhile, it had been rumored in August that Eck had arrived at Meissen with a papal ban, which was actually pronounced there on September 21. This last effort of Luther's for peace was followed on December 12 by his burning of the bull, which was to take effect on the expiration of 120 days, and the papal decretals at Wittenberg, a proceeding defended in his Why the Pope and his Recent Book are Burned and his Assertions Concerning All Articles. Pope Leo X excommunicated Luther on January 3,1521, in the bull Decet Romanum Pontificem.

The execution of the ban, however, was prevented by the pope's relations with Frederick III, Elector of Saxony and by the new emperor Charles V, who, in view of the papal attitude toward him and the feeling of the Diet, found it inadvisable to lend his aid to measures against Luther.

Luther said of the Exsurge Domine: "As for me, the die is cast; I despise alike the favor and fury of Rome; I do not wish to be reconciled with her; or even to hold any communication with her. Let her condemn and burn my books; I, in turn, unless I can find no fire, will condemn and publicly burn the whole pontifical law, that swamp of heresies.

Questions about the text

I've been looking at ways to improve the narrative clarity, and there are some details here that I can't quite get to the bottom of (I checked back through earlier versions to see if someone garbled the original text, but it seems to have been in much this form all along):

Ban

Firstly, I'm not quite sure what is meant by "ban" in "it had been rumored in August that Eck had arrived at Meissen with a papal ban". If it was the ban of excommunication, why would the Pope have to excommunicate Luther on January 3 1521? Perhaps this latter was a confirmation of an excommunication which had come into effect after the lapse of 120 days. The word "ban" is too vague, I feel.

If I read Bainton right, the ban in our text is being used as a synonym for the bull. Eck was commissioned as a nuncio to publish the document in Germany and met stiff resistance and every delaying tactic possible. Luther did not officially receive the bull until 10 October, and then questioned its authenticity, since von Militz was still trying to broker a settlement and his copy did not have the personal seal of the pope on it. It appears that October is the point the official clock was set to ticking, since that date is sixty days, give or take it, from the end of the year, giving time for word of its rejection before the formal ban was pronounced. SO, for clarity, let's replace "ban" with "bull." --CTSWyneken^(talk) 00:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "bull" makes sense and cannot ever be wrong since everything was done by bull. I don't think the reader needs all the ins and outs of timing, so I'm off to have a go at shortening and simplifying the section and maybe reamalgamating it with the following one under a single title.qp10qp 11:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Chronology of the Excommunication

The pope, though, according to the opening part of this section, had in June issued a warning bull with a 60-day limit on it. Since Eck was rumoured to have arrived with the "ban" in August, I'd assumed that that was the excommunication, kicking in after expiry of the 60 days. But for unexplained reasons, this isn't pronounced until September 21, and turns out to be another delayed-action "ban". Why has the pope now given Luther more time (if indeed he has)?

See above. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"This last effort of Luther's for peace was followed on December 12 by his burning of the bull, which was to take effect on the expiration of 120 days . . ." I can only assume that the last effort for peace referred to is this sending of "On the Freedom of a Christian" to the pope in October, mentioned before the September proclaiming. So was Luther actually making a last effort for peace or simply restating his position (or was the book-sending nothing to do with it)?

Next comes a problematic quote: "I submit to no laws of interpreting the word of God.". Has anyone a reference for that? If not, perhaps it should go, because it conflicts with the notion that Luther was making a last effort for peace (and the cite tag embarrasses the article, a little), if indeed he was.

Another to look for. It should not be too difficult to locate. It sounds very familiar. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Source of Quotation

Finally, the quote at the bottom of this section seems, according to its footnote source (which by the way says that Luther burned the bull on 10 December, not 12!), to have been made by Luther on 10 July, whereas its positioning in the section gives the impression he said it after he'd been excommunicated. I think that gives the reader a misdirection. Since it's a good quote, it could go at the top of the section when Exsurge Domine is first mentioned.

Yet one more to source. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that one is nicely sourced. It was by reading the note that I noticed its date.

I think the section can be made easier to follow, more accurate, and more precise. If the order of events can't be explained, it can certainly be simplified. qp10qp 19:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's the only reference I've been able to find for the above uncited quote by Luther. It is given by Philip Schaff in his Encyclopedia, vol.7, p.72, in which he says the following: "In Oct., 1520, at the instance of Miltitz, Luther sent his De Libertate Christiani to the pope, adding the significant phrase: "I submit to no laws of interpreting the word of God." [1] And also, while I'm at it, I may as well include the source for Luther's comment about "hatred of the pope" so it can be properly cited; in the event it winds up back in the article. This comment comes from Luther's Tischreden or Table Talk as recorded by Anthony Lauterbach and Jerome Weller in the American Edition of Luther's Works, vol. 54, P.228. This particular section (No.3543A , pp.225-228) is entitled: Gravely Ill, Luther prepares for His Death - February 1537 ( Luther was in Smalcald for a meeting of the Smalcald League when he became gravely ill with a kidney stone ). The Last two paragraphs of this section read as follows: "He [Martin Luther] ordered the ministers to report the following to the chancellor of the duke of Saxony: "Tell my good friend the chancellor that I wish he might learn to know the pope as well as I know him. Then He'll be as hostile to him as I am." He Raised himself up and, after making the sign of the cross with his hand, he said to us who were standing around him, "The Lord fill you with his benediction and with hatred of the pope!" The chancellor to whom Luther refered was Gregor Brück. Delta x 01:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks. We could use Schaff as a verification for the quote, but my inability to find a direct source for it troubles me, particularly as this opaque passage is not Schaff's finest hour. So, should we keep the quote or not? qp10qp 11:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I can go either way on that. Knowing the Table Talk reference, however, I may be able to pin down a different translation. Re: Schaff: much of the article was seeded from his encyclopedia. Not only is it OK to rewrite or jetison sections of his work that remains, it is what I expected would happen when editors had time to work with it. The text from him was intended to seed our essay. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Bull Burning Date

Anybody have a source for the date of the bull burning? Non-Wikipedia-type online versions tend to have 10 December. qp10qp 11:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Martin Brecht has 10 December in his Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation. I've cited it as such. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 18:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, about two to three hundred I suspect. 8-) I'll look for it sometime today between all else. The good news -- I work in a theological library. Bad news -- school's about to start and I live in a theological library. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You actually live in a library!

Not literally, but as a librarian, it does seem that way some days. 8-) --CTSWyneken^(talk) 18:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit Report

I've edited those sections now. In particular, I've provisionally cut a chunk of material that perhaps is slightly legendary. It certainly smells that way. People who own biographies of Luther might wish to put the following back in, if it holds up, but I think we should be bold in breaking with traditional stories, if necessary. Most encyclopedia accounts I've seen omit the stuff about him doing the cinematic thing to the crowd. And it appears that the proceedings of the diet went on after he made the statement: I don't think he emerged straight away. But I may be wrong.

If I remember correctly, Luther remained at Worms in negotiations for some time before heading home. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

According to tradition, Luther concluded by saying, "Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen."[I put the Schaff version of the main quote here, instead, because it includes part of this andcan go in the footnotes, whereas the main quote didn't seem to have been given a source in the existing version]At this, the meeting hall erupted in pandemonium. An eyewitness reported, "There was a great noise."[60]. Eck began to argue with Luther in the midst of the noise, and Emperor Charles V, excited and angry, stood up and walked out the hall stating that he had enough of such talk.[61] Luther's supporters began cheering Luther, while the Emperor's Spanish supporters started jeering and shouting, "To the fire with him!"[62]. Luther left the hall and once outside he raised his arms and in the traditional shout of a victorious knight at a tournament he yelled, "I am through! I am through!"[63]

I also cut The execution of the ban, however, was prevented by the pope's relations with Frederick III, Elector of Saxony and by the new emperor Charles V, who, in view of the papal attitude toward him and the feeling of the Diet, found it inadvisable to lend his aid to measures against Luther.

Given the original vagueness of what were bans and what were warnings, I can only guess from Schaff's positioning of this that it refers to the period between Exsurge Domine in June and the Diet of Worms, when it seems that Mr Eck was getting a rough ride in Frederick's territory. But it purports to refer only to the period after the excommunication on 3 January, as it mentions the "Diet". Since the Diet of Worms started later that month and Luther was up before it in April, you'd have to say that Charles V and the Diet members got on the job pretty quickly. The statement would make more sense to me if it referred to events after the Edict: it makes me wonder if Schaff was having editing troubles of his own and juggling sentences without regard to narrative logic.

I have also removed the forced tinge of melodrama from the tale of Luther's removal to Wartburg; but I've left the "masked men" because I interpret this subterfuge as the prudent attempt by Frederick and his men not to be identified as opposing the excommunication while the emperor and his men were still in Germany (the Edict of Worms condemns anyone who shelters Luther). I was not clear whether Luther left Worms before or after the verdict — accounts and dates differ — but I don't think it really matters because Charles couldn't arrest Luther there anyway, having granted safe-conduct. qp10qp 15:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC) (Just for the record, I now think the verdict was probably reached before Luther left Worms but not put formally on paper until the promised safe-conduct had elapsed.)qp10qp 22:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Begun work on Widening breach

I've begun the process of moving detail to subarticles and puting the section on a diet (pun intended).--CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Final years

I've added back in a shortened version of what was removed a few days ago re his attacks on the papacy, placing them in the chronologically correct place. It's cut down quite significantly now and I removed the spin from the Catholic Encyclopedia that was previously in the section. --Mantanmoreland 14:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I was going to do something similar: that is certainly the best place for it, though I suspect that you still have a double reference to the same pamphlet under two different translations.

I've been trying to research the Catholic case against Luther, which seems to me strongest on the following two points, both made at the time by Erasmus:

• Justification by faith alone undermines the Christian principle of good works.

• Succession from the Church guarantees political unrest: Erasmus deplored the Peasants' War for that reason; and in retrospect Luther's rejection of the established Church can be said to have led to centuries of appalling war between Protestants and Catholics that even continues in places to this day. I'm working on ways to introduce Erasmus's analysis into the article. qp10qp 16:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes. I removed the double ref and tweaked.--Mantanmoreland 17:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The points added are good, although I think a better source for Catholic opinion might be helpful, since this source was challenged earlier. There are some excellent recent biographies by Catholic authors that just might do the trick.

We also should look towards the Anabaptist critique, and, if there is one, a Muslim voice. The only one of the latter I remember was in the National Geographic article on Luther in 1983. According to that author, Sueleman the Great heard of Luther and is said to have commented: "He would find me a most gracious Lord." Word allegedly got back to Luther at table, who is said to have lifted his stein and commented: God save me from so gracious a ruler." I've been looking for the source of this for years. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 16:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

External links et al

I notice that the appendages below the text of the article, such as the bibliography and external links sections, are exceedingly long. I believe this has been mentioned by another editor in the past. Time for trimming, perhaps? That and the references section consume a substantial amount of space.--Mantanmoreland 20:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The reference section is necessaily lengthy, seeing the number of challenges that have been made in the past concerning the details of our article. It is also important that they be as complete and accurate as possible. We've come a long way on that score, but there are still a number of things left to do there. That being said, the reduction in detail in this article is helping to reduce the size of notes, as these details and their notes move to other articles.

I suggested a week or so ago that we do a subarticle to cover bibliography -- "Books about Martin Luther." We could then move much detail from the Bibliography section here to the new article, leaving only the best general works in this article. That will serve the purpose of both the general reader and those who would like more information. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

There are some issues with the footnotes, though. Wikipedia policy: "The most important thing is to enter comprehensive reference information — that is, enough information so that a reader can find the original source with relative ease". So, to take the first exception to that in the footnotes, footnote 2: we don't need the quote, just the book details and page number. An example of real absurdity is to be found in footnote 46 and others like it. On the other hand, maybe this can wait to be sorted out till the article is of a good standard all through.

If it weren't that these points have been challenged, in many cases repeatedly, I could see to reducing such. However, I get very tired of defending these things because somebody comes by and thinks the well established is untrue, a lie or an attempt to glorify Luther. When citations have been provided, they have sometimes been incorrect, citing material that does not support what the article says, pointing to unreliable sources and the like. I've put hours into bringing them into full and nearly correct formal format for this very reason. In this kind of atmosphere, it is perfectly reasonable to point out to someone who can work with Latin and German where they can find the original German for a quotation translated by a hostle source. Whatever we leave in this article needs that kind of detail because this isn't the average subject. Luther is hated and loved because he is a pivotal figure. I will object to any wholesale reduction of them for these reasons. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, your work on the notes is brilliant, and it gives the article authority. I'm a big supporter of footnotes and would never want them reduced in number, which would be to reduce verification. But I'd like them eventually to be reduced in weight—so that they are signposts rather than destinations or point-scoring. To take the first example: if note number 2 is there to prove the point against opposing opinions that Luther inspired the development of congregational singing, then it exceeds the requirement of an encyclopedia article: the text should be adapted to accommodate all views, not hung with extraneous justifications of one view. Off the top of my head, I've listened to reconstructions of sixteenth-century services at St Mark's Venice that include a good deal of congregational singing, for example, and I know that the Hussites had vernacular congregational singing. The clean way is to change the entry to something like "Luther made a major contribution to. . . " and remove the quote from the reference. (Of course, if there's no controversy about this point, even less reason for the quote in the note.) Most notes should just signpost the reader where to check the fact or assertion. However, for the time being, it's the article that matters, and the notes can be rationalised last.qp10qp 11:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The point actually was challenged, which is why there is a note here at all. Quite a few sources mention this point, which is why the quote was inserted. The point made is that prior to Luther in the west, very little congregational singing was done. After Luther and the rise of Lutheran and Reformed hymnody, almost every congregation sang. This is so much a point of the literature that it is close to axiomatic. To be honest, I was annoyed to find myself having to answer a cite tag for it, for salvation by grace and quite a few other points in the article. If the notes answer critics enough to prevent us from taking all this up over and over again, like groundhog day the movie, I'm ready to support it in full detail -- unless tracking down five other sources that say the same thing and citing them works better... Now, that doesn't mean we can't leave the listing of the influence of Luther on this score out of the intro. This facet doesn't figure very large in encyclopedia articles on Luther, nor the role of his marriage in establishing the Lutheran and Protestant parsonage.--CTSWyneken^(talk) 18:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I intend to cut the "See also" section in its entirety one day. Holler now if you object to that idea.qp10qp 00:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Uhh, "See Also" sections are sort of important on topics like this, you shouldn't just remove all of them :/. Homestarmy 01:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

In this article, though, they mainly duplicate wikilinks in the text. And we have an almighty bunch of extras already, what with footnotes, bibliography, external links, and goodness knows what else - all of which amount to sorts of "see also" in their way. Something has to be cut from this giant furball of information, and I think "See also" is a prime candidate. However, I won't take my scythe out if people disagree.qp10qp 01:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

As long as we have most of these linked in the body of the article, I don't mind. The point behind such a list is to move people to other articles. If we already do that, no problem. We also can check on the cats, which can often provide the same sort of links. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone object to a few more "main articles" on subjects such as "Books about Martin Luther," "Films about Martin Luther," etc.? That would allow us to reduce the number of these in the article without loosing the detail many folk would like to have on this score? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"The Hive"

Anyone seen this article about Wikipedia in the September 2006 edition of The Atlantic Monthly? I found it very interesting. Check it out. The Hive by Marshall Poe. Delta x 01:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see anything about this article in it though....? Homestarmy 01:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Poe's article is basically about Wikipedia in general: I didn't mean to imply otherwise. Delta x 02:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for trimming

I appreciate the work being done here to trim the article back. Now it's time to reduce the size of the "Luther and Antisemitism" section. It is obvious to me that this article has been created as a result of POV wars. Time to take it down in size. There are two other articles on Wiki related to this subject. So time to trim. Where do we start? Suggestions?VeitDietrich 02:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure you want to open that can of worms? We're not yet completely done with the rest of the article. If you're going to do this, I'd suggest looking at a few encyclopedia articles and biographies on Luther to get an idea how much they talk about the subject and what they say. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 02:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot more to be done on the article first, and I favour leaving this section till last. My reason is that attempts to change it now (I'd say it needs cutting by half and a change of tense) may bring people here who, despite good intentions, may cause collateral damage to the rest of the article and introduce instability. I say we should get the rest of the article up to feature article level first, then really concentrate on what I consider the article's Achilles heel (nothing wrong with the intention of it, but there's too much of it and it's in journalese).qp10qp 12:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I cut the "See also" section

My motivation was to reduce the elephantine addenda to this article. Most of the items were already linked in the text; in-text links seem to me one of the great beauties of Wikipedia; they make it superfluous to add a random list of some of them at the end. I linked a few further in the text, where necessary—for example, Justification, Jesus, and Christianity.

Here are the ones not linked in the text, for editors to consider whether these may be done without or not.

• Christianity and anti-Semitism
• Erasmus' Correspondents
• John Calvin
• Images of Martin Luther
• International Museum of the Reformation
• Theology of the Cross
• Theology of Glory

Of these, John Calvin seems to me the only one we probably still need. I was surprised not to find his name in the text, and perhaps we need a line assessing Luther's contribution to the Reformation, where we can credit Calvin's too.

My opinions on the rest: the first two above are covered well enough by related links. People can find images of Luther easily enough—and more of them—at Google, as they well know. The International Museum of the Reformation is a surprisingly bad article, which reads like an ad for the museum; we might be better linking direct to the museum in "External Links". The two theologies at the bottom of the list are actually fully treated in the article but not under those names. Unless we name them that way in the article, readers are unlikely to respond to these two links; but then we'd link them in the article in the first place. The two articles are in any case very short and might better be linked from "Theology of Martin Luther"

I also changed the title of the "References" section to "Notes and References", because that's what it amounts to.qp10qp 13:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've now placed a link to the Reformation museum in the "External Links" section, though it seems mainly concerned with Calvin.qp10qp 17:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've managed to fold a mention of Christianity and anti-Semitism into the text, since it does seem a substantial article. I wonder if the link to Images of Martin Luther— I can see that someone has gone to trouble in collecting these images— might find a way into Mr Wyneken's new article List of books and films about Martin Luther (excellent work on that and on "Widening Breach", by the way). Erasmus' Correspondents is a mere list, tangential to this article only in having Luther's name on it.qp10qp 19:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there a way to add this to the wikimedia box we have on the page? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 20:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. There's a nice collection of pictures on Commons, but I don't know if the general reader would know what Commons is. My instinct was that the images link was not essential, but I do see that someone made the effort with the image page on behalf of this article.qp10qp 11:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I cut an anachronistic and intrusive picture

Martin Luther

The picture sat oddly in among the notes and was plainly getting in the way there. But it's an inappropriate picture, anyway, in my opinion, because it was obviously drawn centuries after Luther's death—my guess would be nineteenth century. If we wanted to use another picture of Luther, we have extraordinary Cranachs to choose from. And we know from those and from the death mask that Luther looked nothing like the soft, kindly chap in this picture. As a document it is worthless; I'd like to see this article dissociate itself from Wikipedia's tolerance of anachronistic artworks.

I have issues with the drab photo of Luther's anachronistic statue, too, which is one too many photos in the "Eucharist Controversy" section, in my opinion; but I'll leave that for another day.qp10qp 14:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Some Questions

Law and Gospel

In the section "Justification by faith", what has the second paragraph to do with the first or the heading? I'm not saying it has nothing to do with them, but to a layman (me, anyway) the connection is not clear. Apart from which, there there is no real explanation of what "Law and Gospel" means in this context; even from the linked article, which seems to refer more to later documents, I can't quite glean why this paragraph is here in particular and, I fear, nor may the general reader. The theology article puts "Law and Gospel" into a section of its own, but so far (I know this is work in progress) says no more about it.

My suggestion: remove paragraph on "Law and Gospel" as of limited general interest, but add a little on "Justification" to make up for it, to link forward to the indulgence section, which concerns Luther's attack on the notion of justification through financial transactions. I can do this by referring to the theology article, but it's probably better done by someone who knows more about it. (Or perhaps nothing needs doing at all, and it's just me.)

Law and Gospel is a major theme in Luther's theology (see "Martin Luther" in Encarta) and directly related to Justification. Luther believed original sin, the inborn curse that makes everyone a sinner from conception, separated us all from God forever. In Luther's view, the law is designed to show us our sin and lost state, condemn us to hell for our disobedience and drive us to Christ for salvation. The Gospel comforts sinners with the good news that Christ died on the cross in our place so that our guilt is atoned for, our sins forgiven and a new life planted within us. From Luther's perspective, it is important to jusfication because it details the way that God gives us His grace.

Having said this, I'm not committed to the current placement of this paragraph, nor its current wording. I do believe it belongs in our article in some fashion, however. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 09:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't implying that it wasn't linked, just that it isn't explained or made to link. I think I might be able to link it to the Justification part now. I am happy enough with this section otherwise because the Justification theory seeems to me the seed of all the others.qp10qp 10:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Exile at the Wartburg Castle

The more I think about it, the more this title sounds wrong. If you look at a map, Eisenach, where Luther had been to school, is not far from Wittenberg, so how can this have been an exile? The castle was owned by Frederick the Wise, whose centre was Wittenberg, and so Luther was not even the guest of a different lord. Also, exile denotes punishment, but Luther wasn't sentenced to go to the Wartburg; he went there to escape capture or sanctions from the empire. Finally, the article notes two visits Luther made to Wittenberg during his stay, so, bearded or not, he had a certain freedom. For all we know, he may have gone to Wittenberg on other occasions:

My suggestion: that the title be changed to "Refuge at the Wartburg Castle", "Stay at the Wartburg Castle", "At the Wartburg Castle", or something similar.

I have no problem with renaming the section, although Luther was kept within the walls of the Wartburg 24/7 until events brought him back to Wittenberg during Invocavit of 1522. The section name comes from Luther's nickname for the place: "My Patmos." Anyway, any of these titles work for me, so please pick the one that sounds most harmonious to your ears. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 09:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Aha!!!!!!!!! Now you've told me that, I want to keep it because it's perfect after all. All that's needed is for the Patmos reference to go into the section. (Luther's remark is probably the

I've found it!

An introductory letter to Francis von Sickingen:

In order to demonstrate that I am not idle in this wilderness and in my Patmos, I, too, have written a Revelation for myself and will share it with all who desire it. I am herewith sending it to Your Honor to show my good will and gratitude for the many encouragements and offers9 you have given to me, an unworthy person. It is a sermon On Confession.

Martin Luther, "Letter 82," in Luther's Works, Vol. 48: Letters I, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald and Helmut T. Lehmann, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999, c1963), 48:246 . --CTSWyneken^(talk) 18:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I've only just noticed this: smart work! I also found a Patmos reference ("On my Patmos I translated the whole New Testament. Philip and I have now begun to polish the whole thing. . .") here: Letter to George Spalatin, 30 March 1522. George.M.Todd, Luther:A Life, Chapter 12. I'd be interested to know your judgement on this website as a reliable source. Is this a reputable enough site to reference (it would be nice for the readers to be able to check the ref online)? A different edition of Todd's book appears on Amazon, which is promising; I presume Todd or his publishers permitted this transcription.

Thanks! Amazing what a computer and a theological library can let you do. :-) I'll look at the site later. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 18:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, you'd know this better than me: what is the John who was exiled on Patmos usually called? John of Patmos, St John of Patmos, St John the Divine, St John author of Revelation, or what? (I don't want anyone to muddle him with other St Johns).

Depends on the opinion of the historian in question. Traditionally, and in my view, John of Capernaum, son of Zebedee, a.k.a. John the Evangelist. Some go with John of Patmos, others John of Ephesus, "the author of Revelation" is the safest. Pick your source -- there's a least a dozen for each. I'd have to find it, but it is said Luther quipped: "revelation doesn't reveal..." --CTSWyneken^(talk) 18:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on this section at the moment, double-verifying and rephrasing Schaff. . . will take some time qp10qp 15:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Good! I'm all of a sudden busy here, so I'll be at it on a drive-by basis for a week or so... I'd like to be in a place where we no longer have Schaff language in the article. It was only intended to seed it, not be it. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 18:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like a copright vio to me. Absolutely no statement of source or permission that I can see anywhere. Of course, it may be somewhat accessible on books.google.com. In any case, I'd paraphrase and reference the print source. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 18:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Anabaptists

Is there not a contradiction between:

"Around Christmas 1521 Anabaptists from Zwickau added to the anarchy."

and

"...the revolts turned into an all-out war [the Peasants' War (1524-5)], the experience of which played an important role in the founding of the Anabaptist movement."

Suggestion: refer to the anabaptist tendency in the first case, linking to the Zwickau prophets, and in the second case say that the war contributed to the development of the Anabaptist movement.

At the very least, the language is muddy. We do need to say something of the Anabaptists here and throughout. I'm open to a rework of what sounds like an artifact from the Schaff article. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 09:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I can sort this. The problem is that "anabaptist" was originally an insult, which is probably why there's no particular founding date. It can mean a belief in adult baptism or the name of a particular group.qp10qp 10:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Luther's reply to Melanchthon's letter

I can't quite grasp how Luther's reply answers Melanchthon's question in the following:

For example, Philipp Melanchthon wrote to him and asked how to answer the charge that the reformers neglected pilgrimages, fasts and other traditional forms of piety. Luther replied on August 1, 1521: "If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2 Pet 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign."

It's a seminal quote, though perhaps we don't need all of it; but some explanation of how that answers the question might help a reader who has not read the correspondence. From my partial knowledge of Luther, I would have expected his reply to go something like: "We believe that God's grace is freely given to everyone and therefore can't be earned through pious acts".

Suggestion: perhaps someone could make the connection clearer. Otherwise I will change the text to say merely that Luther wrote this in a letter to Melanchthon. qp10qp 22:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

What Luther is saying is that Christians should not make up their own rules and condemn others for not following them. Violating such rules is not really a sin. So go ahead and do it, but believe in God and His mercy towards us for real sins. The context helps to explain this.

Not the context in the article, in my opinion. I have no doubt that the connection is clear from the context of the published correspondence, but here it seems a non sequitur. The nearest I could get to grasping the connection was to think Luther meant that if you sin, you sin, and you can't get those sins remitted by going on pilgrimages etc. But I had to think too much to get even that far. I feel the reader needs more help. qp10qp 11:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Why do we bring this up? This quote has been used to hammer Luther by his opponents from the 16th century until this very day. The question of whether we include it at all is open for me, though. It certainly does not figure prominently by itself in Luther's theology nor does it influence much of anything beyond polemics both ways. If we keep it, we certainly can reword the commentary. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 09:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't for a minute think we shouldn't bring this up. The middle part of the quote is highly memorable and famous and definitely needs to be here, in my opinion. I haven't researched it yet, but I think I could find a sharper way of presenting this exchange, a way which assists the narrative of the section.

Anyway, the whole thing is fascinating. Many thanks.qp10qp 11:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If I don't miss my guess, I believe we link to a translation of the whole letter. If not, Let me know and I can provide you with one. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've just read it and there's nothing in it that specifically answers what we have as Melanchthon's query. I will have to check to see if I can find his letter, or just use the formula I mentioned yesterday, concentrating on what Luther said rather than what it replied to.

I did however find a wonderful remark in this letter which i think is just what we need to liven up the nuns and monks issue:

For I too would love to come to the aid of the monks and nuns. I very much pity these wretched human beings, these young men and girls who suffer defilement and burning.

That's so human and it jumps right off the page. In my opinion it's the sort of quote that could bring Luther to life for an encyclopedia reader. I'll see if I can work it in when I come to look at the section in question.qp10qp 16:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotection

May be time for that again. --Mantanmoreland 14:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's wait just a bit and see what happens. We've almost always had one or two vandals a day. What gets annoying is when it climbs to five or ten a day. If this particular user keeps at it, we can report the IP for banning. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 14:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, CTS, but apparently the vandalism was considered serious enough that semi-protection was granted anyway. Presumably this can be lifted in a week or so.--Mantanmoreland 14:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 14:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Indulgence Controversy/Response of the papacy

I've tightened (I hope) these two sections, reducing them by about 250 words. Some detail has gone, but the events, issues, and references are substantially the same, and I've added some information and notes.

My motivation was to help bring the article towards a fighting weight and also to focus these sections more on the evolution of Luther's doctrinal stance in the clash with the papacy. I've changed the name of "Indulgence Controversy" to "The 95 Theses" because I believe that it was the deeper issues underpinning the theses that stirred all the controversy rather than the attack on indulgence abuse per se, which was fairly standard for the day (bigger encyclopedias have sections for both "Indulgence Controversy" and "The 95 Theses", but we haven't got space for both).

I've tried to underpin the text with references to what the theses actually said (I even ploughed through them in Latin) and with micro-acknowledgements of uncertainties in traditional detail (people familiar with this stuff will recognise the nuances of certain word choices, for example that the theses were "partly" a reaction to Tetzel and were traditionally "posted" to the door etc.). I've researched pretty much every inch of these sections, though I've taken the pre-existing references on trust because I haven't those books. Please check this over in case I've made some stupid howlers or omissions. qp10qp 23:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It sounds good; I'll take a look. The only observation I have is the 95 Theses themselves are beside the point. They are very medieval in content. We like to quip that he "out Romed the Pope" in them. In fact, almost all of the actual points Luther made in them were granted by the Vatican not long into the controversy. The real rub, as Albrecht of Mainz and Eck noticed, was the implicit challenge of Papal authority. If they had come first with the concessions, Luther may have not pressed the authority issue. As it turned out, the pressure pushed Luther to formulate the other signature doctrines of his theology, by which time, as Erasmus noted, the breach could no longer be repaired. Whatever we settle with, we need to have a heading that reflects that. I think 95 Theses is too narrow for it. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 23:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Umm... I don't see the changes. Are they in a sandbox somewhere? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 23:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

They're up now: it pays for me to stick the Talk comment up first as people might think the changes were unexplained.

You will see from my changes why I think the new heading is justified, but that's not a big deal; change it back if you like. I agree with you that plenty of the theses merely juggle with the ins and outs of indulgence theology, but the crucial ones go much further; and although Luther didn't yet challenge the papacy's right to exist as such (he merely pointed out some theological issues and malpractices that the pope might care to act on) the doctrinal challenge to to the keys is plainly there, not just implicitly, as Mazzolini and others quickly noted. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "not long into the controversy"; it's true that the papacy banned financial aspects of indulgences at the Council of Trent, but my reading of Exsurge Domine (1520) and Decet Romanum Pontificem (1521) is that Leo was still rambling on against Luther over the same old things—as well as some new ones—with no let up.qp10qp 00:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Part of the trick in reading the thing is that the theses were meant to push the envelope a bit and not necessarily to be taken completely seriously. That was a part of the surprise Luther expected when the whole thing exploded into controversy. Luther was only looking for the actual reforms enacted. My impression was that he didn't even intend the challenges to papal authority the Archbishop of Mainz and Eck saw there. I'll look for some commentary for you. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 10:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've read through the section quickly, and it looks basically fine. I'll probably do a few copy edits if time permits (we had a prof die Monday and with a funeral coming Friday, we are all of a sudden even busier). If anything, we have more detail than most encyclopedias do. For example, several historian note that Luther was likely completely unaware of the financial arrangements between the Pope and the Archbishop of Mainz. We could move that deatil to the main article without loosing a thing in our article. More later. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

In a quiet way, I did take the points you make into account. For example, I used the expression "probably unintentionally". On the other hand, although I believe instinctively that this was the case, we mustn't read Luther's mind; we should just report what he actually said, which, whether he meant it to be or not, was incendiary. On the other hand, if you have a historian quoting Luther's stated unwittingness, it would help this part certainly (my guess for the best place to look would be around his dealings with Milititz); historians' speculation, if unverified by letters or whatever, wouldn't, in my opinion.

As far as Albert of Mainz is concerned (by the way, the reason I call him "Albert" rather than "Albrecht" is because his page has called him that: principle of least astonishment), I did in one draft say that Luther was probably unaware Albert was on the take, but this added more weasely mind-reading, though I'm sure it is true. All we can do is state the facts, and I believe that the fact of what Albert was up to is an essential fact: it knocked me back with surprise when I read of it (I knew these guys were abusing the system by selling indulgences to renovate St Peter's, but I had not realised they were actually raking the money off for themselves, and on such a scale). I deliberately moved this point away from the initial mention of the theses, so that the reader would not mistakenly assume that Luther wrote them partly because the indulgence money was not all going to Rome.

I certainly would prefer that part not to be moved, and for technical reasons that I haven't mentioned here before. One of the things I have tried to do in this and some of my other large edits is to make the article flow more for the reader as an organic whole rather than as a bead-string of self-contained sections. One way of doing this is to "throw hooks", to use Raymond Chandler's expression, for the next section. Books about article writing and non-fiction writing—for example, the ones by William Zinsser—recommend this approach to drawing readers in and keeping them. And so the first of the two sections now starts with Luther sending the theses to Albert; it then deals particularly with the issues in the theses that will have repercussions in the next and subsequent sections; and it ends with a pre-echo of the next section. The second section then picks up an unresolved question from the previous one (how did Albert react?) and uses this to take us from Germany to Rome and begins reporting the reaction of the papacy. And off we go again.qp10qp 12:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Picture of Margarethe Luther

Does anyone know why it is placed where it is? Unlike the other pictures it seems unrelated to the neighbouring text. I thought at first she'd died then, but she died in 1531. (Don't worry, I'm not proposing to delete it.)qp10qp 17:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure. we could move it somewhere else. How about the early life article? Of course there are other good photos there... --CTSWyneken^(talk) 18:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Impressions of the Luther Article

I think the article has improved considerably and is easier to read. Now it is time to start cutting back on that way-too long section on Luther and Antisemitism. Since there are two separate Wikipedia articles on the subject, I think that the present length of the sub-section looks silly compared to the rest of the article. I haven't spent too much time reading the history of this issue, but my initial impression is that its length is a result of a good bit of editing warring back and forth and POV pushing by those who want to make this the predominant issue in the Luther article. Time to cut it back, in my opinion. VeitDietrich 16:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You can have a go. But here's my reasoning for not tackling it myself yet: the more we trim the rest of the article—and that job is still only a half or a third done—the better the eventual case for cutting the anti-Semitism section, which will then self-evidently be out of proportion. At this point, however, a serious attempt to cut it down might draw a group of people here who would destabilize the overall editing process, for example by trashing good work along with their reverts. Just an opinion.qp10qp 17:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Qp. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 18:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Luther on Islam

While we have extensive coverage of Luther's views on Judaism, we have no mention whatsoever of Luther's views on Islam. Luther's views on Islam are expressed in the following works:

• On War Against the Turk (1529)
• Heerpredigt wider den Türken (Sermon Against the Turks, 1529)
• Vorwort zu dem Libellus de ritu et moribus Turcorum (Preface to Tract on the Religion and Customs of the Turks, 1530)
• Appeal for Prayer Against the Turks (1541)
• Vorrede zu Theodor Biblianders Koranausgabe (Preface to Theodor Bibliander’s Edition of the Qur’an, 1543)

A good academic overview of Luther's views on Islam can be found in "Martin Luther — Translations of Two Prefaces on Islam" by Sarah Henrich and James L. Boyce. A more pedestrian overview can be found at LutheransOnline.com. Kaldari 05:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the references! We will, of course, want to add something about Luther's views on Islam. In the context of his life and times, these views are more important than his comments on Judaism. I'm not in favor of putting more than a brief reference in about it, however. The section on Luther's views on the Jews is, in my opinion, much too long, as are other parts of the article. We have been working on the body of the work to bring it down to size. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 10:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it seems Luther's views on Islam were more relevant at the time Luther was alive since the Holy Roman Empire was at war with Turkey. His views on Judaism were largely ignored until the rise of Nazism. It seems to me the sections on Islam and Judaism should have similar weight in this article. While it's true his views on Judaism were used by the Nazis for propaganda, his views on Islam were also used as political propaganda, although 400 years ealier. Of course, World War II and the holocaust are more relevant and notable to a modern audience, so perhaps it makes sense to have a larger section on Judaism. Regardless, things are a bit lop-sided as they stand now. Kaldari 19:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

In light of the Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy, maybe his views on Islam have renewed relevance.--Shtove 19:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Amazing! It's been a long time since the choir sang here! 8-) If someone wants to add something, go ahead. My time is limited at the moment. Do me a favor, though. National Geographic's 1983 article on Luther mentioned that Sueleman the Great once remarked, "Luther would find me a most gracious ruler." It is said the report got back to Luther at table, who lifted his stein and said, "God save me from so gracous a ruler." I can't find it. If you see a cite, I would love to have it. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 10:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to chime in here - yes please do contribute on Luther's views of Islam! That is a fantastic idea. (as for the pople and his recent remarks and the hysterical reaction, don't get me started...)--Mantanmoreland 11:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Uuuh, so who's going to contribute? Where are the in-house Islamic scholars when you need them?--Shtove 00:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

(outdent) If no one comes by in a week or so, my time should ease up and I'll do it. Anyone is welcome to read an print bio or encyclopedia article, then add the detail. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 02:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Trip to Rome

I know you will probably criticize my sources, but a movie I have seen and a comic I have read (these don't compare to other sources, I know) have shown Martin going to Rome before being sent to Wittenburg and seeing the corruption there, which helped him start his reforms. Is there any historical proof for this? If anyone knows of any, I would like to put something in the article about this, if I could. 70.230.29.198

Welcome! Yes, he did go to Rome as described and I do believe that you have the timing right. May I suggest that you pick up Roland Bainton's little biography, Here I Stand? It should be fairly easy to get your hands on and would provide all the detail you'd need. Also, please register as a user and sign in. It helps us to build working relationships. You need not reveal anything about your real world identity, if you would rather not. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 02:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

POV of "virulently antisemitic"

Come on now, folks, this is blatant POV. Why not return to the paragraph as it was a month ago. --Drboisclair 17:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

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.[9] These views were given "full publicity"[10] by the Nazis in Germany in 1933–45.[11]

This paragraph states the facts and avoids the POV characterizations. I propose to return the paragraph to this.--Drboisclair 17:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think that characterizing the statements above as "virulently anti-semitic" is POV? What would be a more NPOV way of describing such statements? I'm quite opposed to just listing Luther's most anti-Semitic statements in the intro. That to me is more POV, as it is without any context, and bad style as quotes and specific details do not belong in intros. If there is a better way to summarize the issue of Luther's anti-Semitism, or his views on Jews in general, I would certainly be interested in hearing your ideas. Kaldari 17:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

What would actually bring the sentence closer to NPOV is if we added a bit more context. It should be understood that Luther lived in very anti-Semetic times, and his views were certainly not radical or unorthodoxed in the setting in which they existed. Without explaining that to the reader, one gets a very jarring impression of Luther's position (as the reader interprets it from a modern context). Kaldari 17:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

His views are regarded by some historians as extreme even by the standards of the day. We've been through this a thousand times, Kaldari, in order to reach an agreement over that paragraph. It's complex, there are different defs of anti-Semitism (was it racial, was it religious, as it something else?), and different views on how radical Luther's words were. Therefore, better just to say what he said, and not to add our own opinion to it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• "Virulent" is POV. Find a better word, or just say "anti-semitic" and let his works and words in that regard stand on their own. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. I agree that "virulent" could be considered POV. Kaldari 18:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe the essential problem here is a question of context. Obviously, much of Luther's writing was anti-Semitic. I don't believe any reasonable person can read Luther's writing and deny that (without some semantic gymnastics). However, these writings were in the tradition of Medieval Christian anti-Semitism, not the modern anti-Semitism that frequently incorporates ideas of race and even eugenics. Medieval anti-Semitism was a strictly religious affair. If there is some way we could better explain the context, I think this would allieviate the POV issue. To bend over backwards to avoid using the word "anti-Semitic" however, seems disingenuous (and perhaps POV itself). Kaldari 18:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to respond to this comment. You mean "Obviously, much of Luther's writings about the Jews was anti-Semitic." I have personally read many of Luther's treatises and letters that do not speak of the Jews, and they are not anti-Semitic. Besides, you should also take into consideration his That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew (1523). What is interesting to note in his horrible Against the Jews and Their Lies (1543) is that he seems to go against the common medieval custom of denying Jewish people property ownership and the right to become artisans and join the appropriate guilds. Of course, his proposals are evil, but he seems to be going against the grain of medieval anti-Semitism. I think that you raise an important point about the type of antisemitism involved. This should come out in the section below and in an article that deals with Luther and Antisemitism. --Drboisclair 19:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • I've restored the intro. It's better to let the facts speak for themselves than to use a label. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I thank my fellow editors for their remarks and work on this paragraph, and I thank them for their consideration of this matter. My view is that the paragraph had been painstakingly crafted in past months, and it provides the needed information. Thank you all again.--Drboisclair 19:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Tell me, do you also believe that characterizing Hilter as anti-Semitic would be POV? If not, why not? Stylistically, I strongly oppose the wording of the current sentence. If you can suggest a better way to summerize the information, please do so. Listing such specific details without any context is not acceptable for an intro paragraph. Kaldari 19:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Fellow editor Kaldari, you do more by saying what Hitler did than by calling him names. Luther never did what Hitler did. I resent the equation of Luther=Hitler. That is unfair and unscholarly. I think that you are more effective in putting the point across by simply having the paragraph as we have painstakingly crafted it over the past months. And, yes, it might be considered POV for Wikipedia to state "Hitler was anti-Semitic". I have no problem with all the vilifying words that can be said of a man, who was also an enemy to Christians. Why not list what he factually did, wrote, and stood for by quoting documents and historians, et al. Understate things rather than overstate things. I have no problem believing that Hitler is burning in hell with all of his other fellow monsters like Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, and Pol Pot.--Drboisclair 19:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh please, don't start trolling by declaring that I have equated Luther to Hitler. You have reduced the quality of this debate to a childish flame war. I have no problem listing what Luther did. I do however, have a problem adding such specific lists to the intro. Show me a suggestion that is a summary and I will certainly be interested. Kaldari 20:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, brother, here we go again.--Drboisclair 20:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Why not leave it as Slim Virgin has put it. I think you should be open to the manner in which she and others would want this to read. Please stop edit warring.--Drboisclair 20:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't care about whether it makes Luther look like an angel or a monster. My concern here is purely stylistic. I came here from WikiProjecy Biography to help get this article up to shape. I am neither Christian nor Jewish (not even religious). I'm not interested in Martin Luther as a person, whatsoever. I'm only interested in Martin Luther as an article, and the style of the intro is what is not acceptable. Offer me a suggestion that is a summary. Kaldari 20:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Then you should know that it should be phrased "Luther's writings are considered antisemitic ..." That is the NPOV way to put it. I would accept such a statement. You could even state that most modern historians characterize Luther's anti-Jewish writings as anti-Semitic. Why not leave it as Slim Virgin has put it? It is summary enough. A summary is a bit longer than the precis or synopsis that you are proposing.--Drboisclair 20:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I would prefer virtually anything to the previous version. If my original attempt was POV it was only because I was trying to strike a compromise between the two editing camps and that was the best I could come up with. The Lutheran editors were loathe to mention "anti-Semitism" at all in the intro and the Jewish editors wanted to add a detailed list of the most salacious statements without any context. I'll be the first to admit my attempt is not perfect, but I sincerely believe it was progress toward something that is both factual, agreeable, and proper intro style. Kaldari 20:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

And who are the Jewish editors? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The style of the lead section is perfectly acceptable, Kaldari. Please see WP:LEAD. There's no reason not to have relevant details and quotes in lead sections, and it's a misunderstanding of the guideline to think otherwise. This lead section was crafted over many months of debate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The section in question was not "crafted over many months of debate". You wrote the current version word for word and defended it against alternative suggestions (all of which were arguably crap). Besides, no matter how long it was worked on, that does not mean I am not allowed to have input. I'm sure you are familiar with No binding decisions. Kaldari 20:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you're quite wrong about that. This has been discussed over three (at least) talk pages, so don't assume you know the history of the debate by only looking here, and the lead was written after a lot of back and forth on those pages. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have read almost every word of those debates (which took several hours). Kaldari 20:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Which talk pages did you read, and could you say who the Jewish editors are? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am familiar with WP:LEAD. If you are going to include quotes and details in the intro, however, you need to have some kind of context in which to present them. Simply listing facts does not help the reader gain a cursory understanding of the subject matter (the purpose of the introduction). Kaldari 20:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It's too complex a subject to give an intelligent summary, which is why we gave examples of things he said, without calling them anti-Semitic. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

If that is true, it should not be in the intro at all. I believe, however, that it is possible to work together towards an intelligent summary. The argument that "this has been settled" is not going to cut it. Kaldari 20:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Why should complex issues not be in leads? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I'm not set on the use of the word anti-Semitic. I'm just trying to come up with the best wording that will help the readers understand the issue. Please believe me when I say I am working on this in good faith and from a completely neutral point of view. Indeed, I imagine I am the only person who has participated in this debate without some type of conflict of interest. Kaldari 21:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

What is my conflict of interest? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm strongly against dumbing down or inserting unsourced original research apologetics into articles, particularly of the type you have inserted. I, too, would like to know what my "conflict of interest" is. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's work on crafting an intro sentence that provides context, does not whitewash the issue, and conforms to good intro style

I'm serious about this. The previous stalemate version has stagnated long enough. Let's improve it! Here is my suggestion, as currently submitted:
Luther is also known for his writing about the Jews, much of which is considered anti-Semitic. Like most Christian theologists of the era, Luther was strongly contentious towards other religions, going so far as to call for Jewish homes to be destroyed, and their synagogues and schools burned. These views were given "full publicity" by the Nazis in Germany in 1933–45.
Any comment or suggestion on how to improve on that? Kaldari 21:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You're also introducing problems with the grammar e.g. "strongly contentious towards." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Kaldari, I think that you owe Slim Virgin an apology for your characterization of her work on this paragraph. It is not crap. I appreciate the careful way that Slim Virgin has tried to provide consensus here. The way you have it is acceptable to me. I would rather have it back the way it was, but I have no problem with including the word: "Anti-Semitic" or "Anti-Semitism" in the intro. If Slim would like to revise the paragraph, I would support any changes she would make. Respectfully,--Drboisclair 21:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not characterize SlimVirgin's version as crap. This is the second time to have attempted to portray what I have said in a wildly inaccurate manner. Kaldari 21:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Didn't you post this above: "The section in question was not "crafted over many months of debate". You wrote the current version word for word and defended it against alternative suggestions (all of which were arguably crap)." I guess that you meant the alternate suggestions that were posted on the talk pages. However, this characterization is uncivil.--Drboisclair 21:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Kaldari, your proposed introduction contains meaningless phrases, and there was no "stagnant stalemate", there was consensus on a reasonably complete and neutral introduction. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Kaldari, you say you're here in good faith, but at the same time you announce that only you can be NPOV because everyone else has an unspecified conflict of interest, and you continue to revert against three editors on a page you've not edited before. I hope you can see how it's hard to view that as constructive input. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You've also violated 3RR as your first edit today was a revert. Please review WP:3RR: the versions do not have to be the same each time to count towards 3RR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

If anyone would make a good faith effort to work with me on this, I would not be reverting at all. I do not believe that your version provides adequate context to be NPOV, nor do I believe that it represents good introductory style. Can you offer any ideas that will address my concerns? Kaldari 21:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You didn't give anyone time to work with you. You've been reverting, reverting, reverting, and accusing people of conflict of interest. Again I have to ask you: what is my conflict of interest? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the reverts. I'm not going to edit the article any more today. I'm just frustrated because I feel like no one is taking my suggestions seriously at all. Kaldari 21:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The intro as we have worked it out has several references, which will not make sense if you simply use them to refer to what you have changed it to be. The references as provided to Luther's On the Jews ... point to the facts that are stated in the paragraph.--Drboisclair 21:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Kaldari, it's amazing how you come in here talking about "the Jews" and insisting that everyone but you has a "conflict of interest", and then having the nerve to say that everyone by you is not working "in good faith". I think it's pretty clear at this point who is not working "in good faith". Jayjg ^(talk) 21:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "talking about the Jews"? I didn't accuse anyone of not working in good faith. I said that many of the editors have a conflict of interest here (which is a point Slim brought up in the FA nomination). Kaldari 21:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I see no "conflict of interest" here. All editors are equal, and they are all anonymous. I may have disagreed with some of the editors here, but I have just as much of an input in changing things as they have.--Drboisclair 21:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

A conflict of interest implies that one has a way of unduly influencing the outcome of something through exercising a position of authority. That is not going on here.--Drboisclair 21:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Having a conflict of interest means you exercise a position of authority regarding a decision in which you have a personal interest. Everyone who is an editor has a position of authority here. Regardless, this is not a productive argument to have. I only brought it up due to my sheer frustration of no one seriously considering my concerns and input, but rather insisting the matter is closed. Kaldari 21:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) An issue was raised once about one editor, but you wrote that "I imagine I am the only person who has participated in this debate without some type of conflict of interest." I really would like to know what you perceive my conflict of interest to be. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that most of the editors involved in this debate were either Lutheran or Jewish. Is that not the case? Regardless, it's not a productive issue to get into. Can I retract it? :) Kaldari 22:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The introduction is too cluttered with insignificant details. I think that mentioning his hatred towards the jewry is enough, we don't need a long list of proposed actions against them. -Lapinmies 11:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The idea was simply to indicate what he actually said. I agree that it should be streamlined, but it must be streamlined to the satisfaction of all the editors, who are working on it.--Drboisclair 16:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Assuming good faith

I think we should try to assume good faith on both "sides," because we do actually all want the same thing. Kaldari, here is my position. This has been an unstable article because some editors (particularly one, now no longer editing) were very opposed to any mention of Luther's views on Jews in the lead, and didn't want them to be mentioned much in the body of the article either. For that reason, we used a Lutheran encyclopedia as a source and worded the lead to refer to things Luther had said, but without calling them anti-Semitic.

Your argument is that it's fine to list some of the things he said, but we must provide a context. You argue that the context is that he was anti-Semitic, and the context of his anti-Semitism is that so were many others in his day.

That sounds fair enough, but it is problematic, as follows:

• I guarantee that if we add the word anti-Semitic to the lead, it will destabilize it, and we'll be forever batting off new editors and anon IPs who turn up to delete it.
• There is a debate among historians as to what to call his views. Some say it was anti-Semitism pure and simple, racial and religious. Others argue it was religious anti-Semitism only and all he wanted was for the Jews to convert, but they also argue that there is a continuum between his views and modern anti-Semitism. Others avoid that term completely and call it anti-Judaism, saying there is no continuum between Luther's position and that of modern anti-Semites. To pick out just one position for the lead would be POV.
• The claim that his views were quite normal for the day is also disputed by historians. Some would agree with you, while others argue that his views were much more extreme than anyone else's at the time. So again, to pick out one view of the context for the lead would be POV.

For all these reasons, we opted to give some brief examples of things he had said, without commentary, and to add that his views were used by the Nazis because that is the thing he is best known for outside the strictly theological writings. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Slim, thank you so much for actually being the first person to address the issues I have brought up directly. I understand your logic and agree with it. That said, do you think there is any way the current version can be improved? My main concern is that the current version is rather jarring. It calmly mentions that Luther is known for writing about Jews and then tells you that he wants to burn down their synagogues, without any explanation in between. I don't want to apologize or whitewash, I just want to make it a paragraph that someone can read without falling out of their chair :) Kaldari 22:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I can see what you mean. The first two paragraphs are full of wonderful things like introducing choral singing and marriage for the clergy, then suddenly, wham, he also suggested cutting off the heads of babies and eating them. :-)

Perhaps we could introduce the word anti-Semitism in a way that is more suggestive of the ongoing controversy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I would see no problem with doing that. It is the matter that is taken up in the section below.--Drboisclair 22:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, I would like to apologize to everyone for getting short tempered and reverting excessively. My behavior was not helpful. Thanks for meeting me half-way and assuming good faith. I feel like at least now, we are moving towards productive discussion. Yay! Kaldari 22:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

No worries, Kaldari. Tempers were frayed on all sides. I apologize for my contribution to it.

Would something like this work, where we simply mention the anti-Semitism debate, without coming down on any side? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Luther is also known for his writings about the Jews, the nature and consequences of which are the subject of much debate among historians and scholars of anti-Semitism. His statements that Jews' homes should be destroyed, their synagogues and schools burned, money confiscated, and rights and liberties curtailed were revived by the Nazis in Germany in 1933–45. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could post a possible revision here on the talk page, and then we could discuss it.--Drboisclair 22:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not bad Drb. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 22:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[blushing] it's not mine. I have some comments about it though: One problem with this is "scholars of anti-Semitism". This terminology was used before, and it was questioned. There would need to be references to persons who are such scholars. I think that the wording of the present paragraph is helpful about the Nazis giving these sentiments full publicity.--Drboisclair 22:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Better would be "historians and scholars". I know that it is less exact. Who is a "scholar of Anti-Semitism"? I guess that Dr. Robert Michael might be considered one. Who else?--Drboisclair 22:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It has too much details for an introduction, thats what the chapter in the article is for. It is very odd to place so many small details to the introduction. -Lapinmies 15:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a vast improvement, Slim. It is very thoughtfully and judiciously worded and flows well. Of course, we may need to find some appropriate references as Drboisclair mentioned. Kaldari 22:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see now! That was Slim's! Yes, very good : ) Drb, are you suggesting removing "of anti-Semitism from "historians and scholars of anti-Semitism"? I think the point is to introduce the debate later addressed in the paragraph about Luther's alleged anti-Semitism without having Wikipedia make the label. Removing the mention of anti-Semitism defeats the purpose of this reword, no? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 22:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You have a point there, but the only historian and scholar of Anti-Semitism that has been quoted is Dr. Robert Michael. I remember that there was a lead line in the "Luther and Antisemitism" section below that had it: "Luther has been accused of anti-Semitism ..." That way we could get that word in edgewise.--Drboisclair 22:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Luther is also known for his writings about the Jews, the nature and consequences of which are the subject of much debate among historians and scholars. His statements that Jews' homes should be destroyed, their synagogues and schools burned, money confiscated, and rights and liberties curtailed were revived and given full publicity by the Nazis in Germany in 1933–45. This has resulted in Luther being accused of anti-Semitism.

How is that?--Drboisclair 22:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Well...the problem is that it changes the meaning a bit...he's only characterized as an anti-Semite because the Nazis gave his writings full publicity? I don't think that's quite correct. The first flows a little better, imo, just needs to back it up with historians and scholars of anti-Semitism. There surely is more than one : ) --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 23:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. The Nazis drew attention to these writings, and the Holocaust got the world to view writings such as those with the opprobrium that they deserved.--Drboisclair 23:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Luther is also known for his writings about the Jews, the nature and consequences of which are the subject of much debate among historians and scholars, many of whom have characterized them as anti-Semitism. His statements that Jews' homes should be destroyed, their synagogues and schools burned, money confiscated, and rights and liberties curtailed were revived and given full publicity by the Nazis in Germany in 1933–45.

--Drboisclair 23:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Either this version or Slim's sounds good to me. I agree with MPerel that Drboisclair's first suggestion is a bit problematic, as it changes the meaning into suggesting that Luther would not have been viewed as anti-Semitic otherwise. Also I would prefer "widespread publicity" to "full publicity" as I'm not quite sure what is meant by "full publicity". Kaldari 23:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I could go with that, if others agree. Just a grammatical change, I would change antisemitism to "anti-Semitic". --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 23:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think the adjective "anti-Semitic" sounds better there. Kaldari 23:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with either version too. I'd also prefer "anti-Semitic" and I think we can get rid of historians and just say scholars (or just historians). I'd added both to mean historians on the one hand, and scholars of anti-Semitism on the other, so that we had the word anti-Semitism without commenting on it, but we don't need that now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

(outdenting) Any of these will work for me, too. I would prefer the shortest version that accurately summarizes the text later in the article and the main article that treats the issue in the fullest detail. Our efforts these last few months have been aimed at reducing the overall size of the essay. The goal here I think should be to be faithful to WP:LEAD. I think any of them will do for that purpose. What do you all think? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 14:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess someone just jumped in and changed it. I have added a word, and this is my third revert for the past 24 hours. I would ask that we discuss this new version that was put in. I would not be adverse to simply putting it back the way Jayjg reverted it yesterday evening. This shorter version may not be acceptable to all editors.--Drboisclair 16:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The new final paragraph

I have added the word "considered", but if anyone has a stronger word, I wouldn't mind if it were used. As it stood it makes a judgment that is the premiss of the debate that is delineated in the subsection below. I like the shorter paragraph, but I would not be against simply reverting to what was painstakingly arrived at over the summer.--Drboisclair 16:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

This new paragraph is a great improvement. I especially like the last sentence that someone added to tie it all back together again. With a little bit of wrangling we went from mediocre compromise to brilliant prose. Nice work everyone :) Kaldari 07:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Final sentence of the Lead-in Intro

I have changed the final sentence a bit for "radical" I believe that "revolutionary" is better, since Luther opposed what is known to history as the "Radical Reformation". The "revolution" is the Protestant Reformation. Editor Kaldari has agreed that this sentence is a good addition as it ties everything in together. Contribution from other editors is very welcome as always.--Drboisclair 01:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Editor Kaldari has changed "full" publicity to "widespread" publicity, which is a good emendation. This intro has to be the cream of the crop from a literary standpoint.--Drboisclair 01:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the mention of the Reformation in the final sentence, when I put it in I was just translating "revolution" which is nothing other than the Reformation unless one were thinking of the revolution that Luther started philosophically by his championing the individual conscience in religion and philosophy.--Drboisclair 01:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I think "revolutionary theological views" is adequate since we already state that he inspired the Reformation in the first sentence. Kaldari 01:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I think that we should avoid "radical" for the reason stated above. Of course, "radical" as an adjective is a synonym for "very extreme" without any politics involved. However, Luther's reformation was considered a "conservative" reformation compared to that of Zwingli and the Anabaptists.--Drboisclair 01:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It's looking fine to me. The only reason I wrote "full publicity" is that it was a quote from the Lutheran encyclopedia, and I was trying to stick closely to the source because of the various disagreements. Widespread is much better English. Thanks, Kaldari. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Nicely done! Does anyone mind if I do some minor stylistic work? I like to avoid passive constructions, if possible and prefer to avoid multiple clause sentences. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Keeping things in active voice grammatically is a good stylistic change.--Drboisclair 16:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The Antisemitism section

An anonymous editor changed this section, which messed up the footnotes. I have restored it as well as I could. I would welcome any help in the restoration. I and others would ask that this section be left as it is for now. The last edit was injurious to the article. Please, watch your editing it messes up the footnotes.--Drboisclair 01:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)