Talk:Martin Luther

Archives and related pages

Archives		Subject Subpages
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6		Cited Authors Bios Copyright of Luther's Works Religious or Racial Antisemitism

Martin Luther and the Jews should be reverted back to its orginal name Martin Luther and Antisemitism

The article and section is all about his antisemitism. Read it, please.Doright 09:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The idea for the section named the way it is is to be broader, encompassing everything that Luther wrote about the Jewish people. Drboisclair 09:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This section should remain under the same title. It is how the issue is framed in the literature. --CTSWyneken 10:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Who moved it and when? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember who (maybe I did). I think it is a NPOV title. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

This not a move but a rename. The section has been here since before I started editing. The name change was so long ago, I cannot remember who did it. However, we can revisit the issue, if you two would like. My basic points are:

1. This topic is widely called "Luther and the Jews" in the literature.

By "this topic," I guess you mean the topic of Martin Luther and Antisemitism, since anyone that would like to read the article can clearly see that is in fact the topic.Doright 20:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

2. There are a substantial number of scholars that insist on distinguishing between Luther's anti-Jewish rhetoric and modern, racial anti-semitism. To name it after the views of one or another school would be to favor the one or the other POV. I would also reject, for the same reason, Luther's anti-judaic views... --CTSWyneken 11:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

We are merely using the word as defined in the dictionary [here]. No one is suggesting naming the article Martin Luther and "modern, racial anti-semitism." Please stop repeating strawman arguments.Doright 20:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

What's the difference between a name change and a move?\

And no, there are a few scholars who distinguish between racial and religious anti-Semitism, though not many. How many say that religious anti-Semitism is not anti-Semitism? How many? Please name them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Religious antisemitism and Anti-Judaism are both antisemitism, as the antisemitism and the Anti-Judaism articles state. [Merriam-Webster Dictionary] also says this. The article should be returned to its original name: Martin Luther and Antisemitism. Doright 20:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

To revert would be to revert back to an anachronism. Let's leave something be for once. --Rekleov 20:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

To revert to that title would be non NPOV. Drboisclair 21:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

That, too. --Rekleov 21:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Rather unsurpisingly, the name of this section was effectively changed by User:Sam Spade last November, when he moved the sub-article from "Martin Luther and anti-Semitism" to "Martin Luther and the Jews": [1]. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Professor Shmuel Almog of the Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem states, "it is currently established procedure to use 'antisemitism' for all types of Jew-hatred." Antisemitism is "applied not just to the modern brand of Jew-hatred but ... to all kinds of enmity toward Jews, past and present." Thus we now say 'antisemitism', even when we talk about remote periods in the past."[[2]] On the basis of the facts presented and discussed above, I plan on restoring the original name. Doright 06:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems I neglected to make the above change. Does anyone know how to do it? --Doright 05:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Clarification – How do we change [this article] back to its original title, Martin Luther and Antisemitism, so that it does not create an infinite self reference to the current euphemistic titled redirection? --Doright 16:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Help:Moving a page lays out the method and principles. Sam 16:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Sam, thank you. I'll give it a try a little later, since as I said on May 12, to which there was no objection, "On the basis of the facts presented and discussed above, I plan on restoring the original name." I'll wait a bit to see if a cogent objection is proferred. --Doright 19:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The Way Forward

I'd like to propose we return the Martin Luther and the Jews section to its last reasonably stable point, which I think was this one. We then move on to other areas of the article. If there then, after a month or so, folks who would like to modify it, we ask that they discuss things here. Considering that I am often party to the ... discussions ... about this section, if there's general agreement, would one of the newly arrived editors do the honor of making it so?

If we go this way, I'll work mostly on documentation and explaination and limit my involvement in direct edits to punctuation, formatting of footnotes, images, etc. If everyone will seek consensus before major changes, then, I will stay in this mode. If we all stick to content issues, I think we can go a long way to improving this article. --CTS Wyneken^(talk) 11:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No thanks. That is an honor I would rather not have, to tell you the truth. I think a much better idea would be that the article be improved and not reverted to a more "stable" version, whatever that means.

The first priority is to change the tone to make it neutral, to remove hagiographic elements, and make it read less like a lengthy tribute to Martin Luther, written from a his point of view, and more like a Wiki article. Then the sources have to be carefully examined to remove ones that are not permitted under WP:RS. --Mantanmoreland 13:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, but I think it's necessary to see all the people who have been "edit warring"

on board. I think it is necessary that the plan include ultimately tackling the "Luther and the Jews" section. Sam

The problem is, I do not think we will get everyone on board. Witness the comment above yours. In addition, user Doright is using the moment to add one quotation after another to the section, lengthening it well beyond the summary of a sub-article it should be. Since I and others, I suspect, feel this is an attempt to swing the section in favor of his point of view and bury that of others, if we do not move on, we are in danger of getting nothing else done here for weeks. As you can see from Mantmoreland's recent comments, we're in for attacks on the qualifications of scholars, questioning of every word to describe their work, and although I hope not, questioning of the integrity of editors. And that's with one of the most aggressive members of this exchange on the sidelines for a week for repeated 3RR violations.

Frankly, I'd like a rest from this for a few weeks. Maybe then, with the exchanges here much cooler, with progress made by editors working together and with the assistance of you and other newly arrived editors, we can get somewhere. --CTS Wyneken^(talk) 16:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Without everyone's agreement, there is no way to impose a solution, short of bringing it to arbitration. I'm happy to chip in with views here and there (and did so above on the question of scholarly credentials), but one section I'm not going to touch myself is the Luther and the Jews section. The answer has to be seeing folks reach out across the chasm that has been created and listening hard to each other's views. I imagine you can use a rest; this page is exhausting! Sam 16:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, especially since we have several times reached across this chasm, achieved a solition, only to have it reopened again and again. So, I guess, I won't discuss it. Let's move on. Hopefully better spirits will prevail and see the wisdom in leaving it alone for awhile. --CTS Wyneken^(talk) 17:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

CTS, I've said this many times before I became the focus of your attention -- in the days when Doright was your main focus -- but I am going to ask you for perhaps the dozenth time to please not make gratuitous personal remarks concerning other editors. (As in "As you can see from Mantmoreland's recent comments, we're in for attacks" yada yada.)

I was brought in to this discussion as a third set of eyes on On the Jews and Their Lies. I quickly changed from being a fair-haired boy getting a Barnstar from Rev. McCain, to being a subject of constant villification and smears from yourself and other editors. So yes, I think a break from this page would be beneficial for you, if you cannot desist from making ad hominem remarks concerning other editors. --Mantanmoreland 19:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Impending Move of NPOV Tag to NPOV-Section

I want to note that I have been looking for specifics on what constitutes "Hagiographic" tone or what other problems there may be outside of the Luther and the Jews Section, a section we all know is controversial. I have highlighted my own issues, which have been discussed and solutions proposed. In the absence of anyone clearly stating where there is an issue with specific language or a specific citation outside of the Luther and the Jews Section, I intend to change the NPOV tag to an NPOV - Section tag, tagging only the Luther and the Jews Section, and will make the changes to the other sections of the article that have been suggested (that is, to rewrite the paragraph with citation needed tags to eliminate those needs and to change the language from the 19th Century Encyclopedia. Please, if you have issues with this move, and think anything else is in question, provide specifics below. You can then all fight over the Luther and the Jews Section with the note that any outcome is going to have POV issues in someone's mind, and will be tagged as such. Thank you. Sam 19:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem with the tone of the entire article, so yes I would not be in favor of changing the NPOV tag.--Mantanmoreland 19:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I intend to make the change unless you give me actionable specifics. What sentances are you talking about? I have read through the article with this charge in mind and not found changes to make to address it. Merely saying the "tone" is not actionable.

If you need a day to put together a good set of comments, just indicate so. Otherwise, when you get the comments together and have actionable problems to highlight, we can move the tag back. Sam 19:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I support this change. I'd also recommend we archive all but the active discussions on this page, give each subject its own heading and work at the issues, one on one. Hopefully, other editors will join us in this endeavor. --CTS Wyneken^(talk) 19:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's start with the beginning of the article, which I attempted to make more neutral but my changes were, as usual, reverted. They provide only a brief reference at the very end to Luther's attitude toward the Jews, which is a good deal more significant than his impact on hymns. This should be moved up and expanded. I think that would add greatly to improve the tone and objectivity of the article.

Let's address that first, and then go section by section. --Mantanmoreland 19:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have checked the Luther articles in several encyclopedias. Few mention Luther's attitude towards the Jews at all. None list the issue in their introductions. I would like to see a citation from a scholarly source that says the issue is more important than other aspects of Luther's life before we move it up higher in the intro. --CTS Wyneken^(talk) 19:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I rather agree. It seems to me that what's generally considered most important about Luther does not include his attitude toward Jews; perhaps it should include his attitude toward Jews, but in the absence of support for the relative importance of this vis-a-vis his other contributions, it would be highly POV for us to overemphasize his feelings and writings toward Jews just because we think it's important and should be empasized more. (And in case anyone's interested, I think he was grossly anti-Semitic, and that his writings had pernicious effects in the previous century; but my opinion, of course, is irrelevant.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I rather do not agree, except for your observation that your own "opinion, of course, is irrelevant." Your POV statement is clear. You say: "It seems to me that what's generally considered most important about Luther does not include his attitude toward Jews." However, among people interested in genocide, racism and other forms of intolerance it seems to me that what's generally considered most important about Luther does include his works on Jews. ("And in case anyone's interested," I'm not interested in your views . . . only your edits and arguments which are more often than not predictable.) Also, a reading of the comments in this article's nomination to feature status may prove fruitful.--Doright 20:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have my own thoughts on this paragraph, but would really like to get all the issues out on the table. I note that when I ask people to highlight issues other than the "Luther and the Jews" section, the only thing that has come up so far is the two sentences summarizing that section. I am more convinced than ever that this POV tag should be a POV-Section tag. I am going to switch it to the long-form POV tag to highlight the desire to have people participate in this dicussion. Sam 20:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Sam, I'd suggest, if you want a consensus of all views re this POV thing etc., that you await the views of others who have edited this article more extensively than I have. There apparently is a high burnout rate, damned if I know why, but they do drop in now and then. Doright is the one who has born the brunt in every sense of the word so you may want to drop him a note on his user page. In fact, I will.--Mantanmoreland 20:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

As for Jpgordon's point -- the Holocaust Museum had an entire exhibit on Martin Luther and the Jews, so I think they would differ with you on that. Most encyclopedias no doubt don't mention the subject, but they are so awful that I hope that they are not used as role models in anything but the tone of their writing, and perhaps not even that. I wouldn't be concerned about what encyclopedias have or don't have. I can't for the life of me recall the last time I found an encyclopedia to be of any use on any serious topic. We had a set when I was a kid, and even then I found inaccuracies.--Mantanmoreland 20:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course the Holocaust Museum would consider Luther's hatred of Jews as the most important aspect for them to emphasize -- other than that, they'd have no reason to consider Luther whatsoever. But what's the broader perspective? This is a place where NPOV becomes very tricky; the historical whitewashing of Luther's anti-Semitism does need to be corrected, and is being corrected. However, whose job is it to correct it? I don't think it's Wikipedia's job to try to drive the historical record one way or another. That's what the "neutral" part in NPOV means. No matter how much we think that Luther's attitudes toward Jews need more emphasis, we don't get to take the leading edge of that argument. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the last thing we have to worry about is that this article is going to be on the cutting edge of criticism of Luther. Hell will freeze over first. Trust me on that.--Mantanmoreland 22:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping him a note. Frankly, I'd be just as happy with getting actionable comments as a consensus on switching the tag. I don't care if the tag gets switched or not, but having the tag without actionable comments devalues the tag itself. And if the actionable comments are limited to Luther and the Jews, the tag should be, too. Sam 20:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I addressed that -- re the introductory paragraphs. The first few paragraphs need to say more about the Jewish issue and higher up.--Mantanmoreland 21:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

But you've also said you have other, as-yet-undisclosed issues. I'm not sure why this should be so hard, and if we're going to resolve any issues in here, we're going to need to identify them first. So let's get the issues on the table. Sam 21:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Sam, I'd like first things first. If this most obvious issue can't or won't be addressed, what is the point of going to a lot of trouble listing the rest? Also I'd like to see others chime in. Is there a rush?--Mantanmoreland 21:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I firmly believe that the only way to resolve disputes is to begin by defining them and what they are. If the dispute isn't identified, it's impossible to address. And addressing issues one at a time is a way to raise blood-pressure and burn people out. Why do you not want to put issues on the table? Sam 21:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I just did (see discussion above re introductory paragraphs), and all it did was raise my blood pressure. Absolutely nothing was accomplished. What is so wrong with waiting for others to chime in? I'm Martin Luther-ed out for the moment. If I find energy to withstand another barrage of "stop disrespecting our scholars," I'll list more POV and tone and source items but frankly my brief experience is that "putting issues on the table" in the Martin Luther-related talk pages resolves nothing. Let others spin their wheels for the moment. Oh, and I suspect that some of the interested parties on the other side of this issue may be observers of the Jewish sabbath, so there may be a 24 hr. wait. --Mantanmoreland 21:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not in a hurry, and happy to wait. But if this issue is just about the Luther and the Jews section, and the summary of it up above, let's say so and focus on those. I'll hold off switching the tag until at least Sunday, see what people have for comments, and see where to go next. Sam 22:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not just about the Luther and the Jews section. I've already expressed the opinion (re this tone thing) that essentially the entire article requires a top to bottom rewrite, such as the one I did for On the Jews and Their Lies when I was still an acceptable editor of the pro-Luther crowd, many hundreds of seconds ago. I trust that my embarking on such a unilateral project would be a waste of time so obviously I'm not going to do that. (P.S. I should mention that my top to bottom rewrite of On the Jews and their Lies was acceptable to all parties for approximately a day and a half.) I don't mean to be cynical or discouraging, but attempting to find a "consensus" on this and other Martin Luther articles is a wearying and fruitless process. Others have tried and failed. I tried in OTJATL and failed.--Mantanmoreland 22:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You have repeated the tone comment over and over, using words like "hagiographic." I keep asking for actionable comments. Come on! Give me examples of several sentences with that a tone you find excessive. Give me a section. Don't just keep throwing up your hands, saying, "it's all bad" and then getting frustrated when I keep saying, "how." Because I will keep saying "how." Sam 22:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Fer crying out loud, Sam, I did give a section -- the first section. I went into specifics. My suggestion that the order of paragraphs need to be changed and more added to the Jewish business was blown off. How many times to I have to repeat that? --Mantanmoreland 22:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Here -- I'll repeat what I posted three long hours ago:

Let's start with the beginning of the article, which I attempted to make more neutral but my changes were, as usual, reverted. They provide only a brief reference at the very end to Luther's attitude toward the Jews, which is a good deal more significant than his impact on hymns. This should be moved up and expanded. I think that would add greatly to improve the tone and objectivity of the article.

I got nowhere fast with that. Thanks but no thanks. Let someone else spin wheels and go up against the brick wall of editors opposed to changes unfavorable to Luther.--Mantanmoreland 22:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting. Yesterday, you said it was fair to ask the question of what is hagigographic, and pointed to the sources for the "Luther and the Jews" section only. Today, you point to language in the heading on Luther and the Jews. My question, repeated over and over, is "do you have any issues with other sections." I tell you what, I'll layout my thoughts on that intro, and what I think should be done with it, but I really want you to do me the favor of highlighting any issues you may have outside of the discussion of 'Luther and the Jews".

Here's my view on the intro. The first paragraph has not been made the subject to controversy and should be left alone. The second paragraph seems out of place in many ways. Going into hymns and marriage before discussing the translation of the Bible and his other writings strikes me as out of place. I would place second in this article a short sentance on his translation of the Bible; another short sentance on his influence on the structure of the Church (missing now); a third on his influence on the liturgy, which would include a reference to hymns. I am not convinced is marriage merits inclusion in the lead, but it would probably belong in this paragraph if it is put anywhere. Then, I would add a paragraph focusing on the broad influence of his writings, including his writings relating to the Jews. I would add to the current discussion a sentance noting that there has been a significant debate among historians of the level of influence and the extent of his influence on the development of anti-Semitism (I think the debate itself is notable and is not mentioned in the intro). I think dealing with anti-Semiticism as an integral part of his writing and influence is more useful than having an isolated paragraph as an aside. I would then conclude with the discussion of the size of the Lutheran and Protestant chruches today - I think that is a natural end.

OK, now, that's my view. I am happy to support it in subsequent discussion. I don't think the current order shows POV or justifies the tag; I do, however, think it flows more naturally and is more comprehensive as I have proposed. M, I do ask that you do me the favor of identifying other issues you have, and not keeping them in your back pocket to be dealt with one at a time. Sam 23:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Good plan for the intro... --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

We've been through this issue of the reference to the Jews in the intro a thousand times. We report what all reputable published sources say on the topic. Not only Lutheran church sources. Not only encyclopedia articles about Luther. Not only articles written by pro-Luther scholars, or specialists on Luther. We represent what ALL reliable sources who have written about Luther say. Those sources include Holocaust scholars and they all write about his alleged influence. Every single book on my shelves about the Holocaust or the Nazis talks about Martin Luther. This is absolutely central to his legacy, like it or not, and it is therefore mentioned in the introduction.

Yes, there is a high burnout rate on these pages, as Mantan says, and it's because of this endless going over and over the same points in an attempt to wear people down. Please stop it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The question at hand was whether or not the POV sticker should apply to the whole article or just one section; I asked what other areas there were complaints in, and this was the only one highlighted, so I did my best to respond to M's complaint about it. Are you of the view that the current intro should stay and is not POV? I am just trying to respond to the issue raised; from what I've seen so far, I've been the one being worn down because I can never get the simple question answered of "do we have complaints outside the issues relating to "Luther and the Jews." Sam 03:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "wear people down." I omitted those three words. The only thing that is keeping me contributing to the page is the vandalism and harassment and nasty emails, not to mention the constant stream of personal attacks (usually dropped casually into appeals for editing help) designed to drive me away. Otherwise this page could go to blazes.--Mantanmoreland 23:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I got the nasty e-mails too, including a threatening one that tried to "out" me. It's an eye-opener. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I should say that I do like Sam's version of the first paragraphs as described. But I don't think that I have quite gotten across the fact that, as has been indicated time and time agaim, that chewing over changes here in advance on Luther pages is a path only to acid reflux. Changes unfavorarble to Luther are never acceptable, or will be agreed to in principle and then chipped away and pecked to death, with intemittent foot-stomping and "you're attacking my reputation" thrown in for the bargain. --Mantanmoreland 23:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have heard that; luckily I keep the Tums around. I'm glad you are positive about this proposal; I don't view the changes to it as "negative to Luther", indeed, I think they flesh out some important areas that aren't in the current lead. I would like to get two things: feedback in principal from some of the other editors, and some idea from you as to what other issues you'd have outside the issues relating to the "Luther and the Jews" section and the lead describing it. Sam 03:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

As Slim has said, we've been over this time and again. We had a reasonable and balanced version of this section that we all could live with a few weeks ago. I suggest again we return to and move on. --CTS Wyneken^(talk) 23:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you happy to keep the current version with the POV sticker permanently attached? I'm doing my best to find an alternative that first limits that sticker and focuses the issues as narrowly as possible. Sam 03:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

A few weeks ago you weren't into year 28 of the Thirty Year Editing War over this article? All was just a happy fairy land? Please. Let's be serious.--Mantanmoreland 23:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

timeline

Timeline for Martin Luther 1483-1546

I'm not sure if this is useful or not. i was thinking for the white space beside the TOC but it could be too big for that. Possibly you can rework this template to make it fit. The page is at template:Timeline Martin Luther. David D. (Talk) 01:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a great idea, David! Is there a way to enlarge the type and shrink the size of the thing to fit alongside our TOC? --CTS Wyneken^(talk) 01:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Certainly the type can be enlarged but then there is a problem of fitting it all in. The size can definetley be reduced. I am not sure of the content. i put in as much of the important stuff as I could glean from the web. Someone here needs to go in and edit the template to clean it up (get rid of useless info and correct/copyedit the info i did add. You probably need to find a template expert to fine tune this thing. I am not one, for sure. David D. (Talk) 01:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I've made a first pass at reducing the size of the timeline. Will take another crack at it later. There is some duplication yet in the table and an item or two yet not there. (1520 Treatises, Marriage, perhaps Bondage of the Will Does anyone see anything you think is missing?

Also, David,when you tested in on the page, how was the width? --CTS Wyneken^(talk) 10:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It was too wide. My main idea originally was to have historic events that related to Luther on the right. Events that involved luther on the left. Now their is less need for tha so it might be possible to put all the events on the left, thus making the timeline much less wide. David D. (Talk) 17:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's go for it. I'm not quite sure how that works. Could you adjust it? --CTS Wyneken^(talk) 19:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

OK I adjusted it some more and added it to the page. Obviously we can still discuss changing elements and fine tune. However, before embarking on that, let's see if it is well received in the main article. If not then there is no point fine tuning the wording, content and colours etc. David D. (Talk) 20:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I like it! Yes, some fine tuning will be in order if we keep it, but I'd like to do just that. What do the rest of you all think? --CTS Wyneken^(talk) 21:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It's great! Very good idea. Thank you, David. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

File:Luther timeline.jpg

JPG version of the timeline. This gives us the opportunity to do a final touch up, or make additions that cannot be done using wiki mark-up

Just so you all know, we are not restricted to the limited format available using the wiki markup. Once we are close to a finished product we can touch it up a bit in photoshop, as i have done here with the current version. David D. (Talk) 23:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You continue to amaze, David. I like this version even better. I'll ponder the events list and see if I have some suggestions sometime tomorrow. --CTS Wyneken^(talk) 00:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

David the timeline is wonderful. Very nice job on that. : ) --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Working on Intro

If it's OK with everyone, let's discuss Sam's suggestions. COpied from above, they are:

Here's my view on the intro. The first paragraph has not been made the subject to controversy and should be left alone. The second paragraph seems out of place in many ways. Going into hymns and marriage before discussing the translation of the Bible and his other writings strikes me as out of place. I would place second in this article a short sentance on his translation of the Bible; another short sentance on his influence on the structure of the Church (missing now); a third on his influence on the liturgy, which would include a reference to hymns. I am not convinced is marriage merits inclusion in the lead, but it would probably belong in this paragraph if it is put anywhere. Then, I would add a paragraph focusing on the broad influence of his writings, including his writings relating to the Jews. I would add to the current discussion a sentance noting that there has been a significant debate among historians of the level of influence and the extent of his influence on the development of anti-Semitism (I think the debate itself is notable and is not mentioned in the intro). I think dealing with anti-Semiticism as an integral part of his writing and influence is more useful than having an isolated paragraph as an aside. I would then conclude with the discussion of the size of the Lutheran and Protestant chruches today - I think that is a natural end. Sam

My thoughts:

Except for the last sentence, I agree that the first paragraph is OK. I do not think it captures what the doctrine is and needs some rewording, perhaps a quote from Luther or one his biographers. We can set it aside for now. I'll come back with a proposal later that we can talk about, unless someone else wants to take a crack at it. --CTS Wyneken^(talk) 13:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The second paragraph certainly could move down. I like the suggestion for a new second paragraph. Would you give us a draft, Sam? --CTS Wyneken^(talk) 13:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Luther's marriage is important, since it is credited (as you can see with the citation provided) Again, the language can be adjusted. To that end, let's check a few sources and report here what they say about the importance of this event. Then we can adjust it as seems best. --CTS Wyneken^(talk) 13:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The Luther and Jews paragraph here certainly can be adjusted, as you have described, but I would prefer to leave it alone, given the controversy it is likely to stir. The trick with this and with describing his writing's influnece is that it can easily grow too large. For example, we have Luther's involvement in the peasant's war, his support of the formation of state churches, the concepts of the priesthood of all believers, the distinction between ecclesiatical and secular powers (ironic that), principles of biblical interpretation, the sacraments, etc. You can see how it all can get out of hand. --CTS Wyneken^(talk) 13:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

As we work our way though, we need to keep in mind the criticism in the FA nom that we should use summary style, consider spinning of subarticles and so on. In this context, I think we should aim at the intro summarizing the article, the article summarizing the subarticles, where the detail and any debates can be conducted fully. --CTS Wyneken^(talk) 13:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I have set up a sandbox with a draft in it for review, comment, and mark-up. I agree on the first paragraph, and would like to have a clearer and more thorough summary of the doctrine of sola fide (or a concise summary of views on Grace, but I do not believe that discussion has POV implications and its just a matter of writing our most compelling and accurate prose there. Here is the Sandbox:

A few notes: I've left the marriage in but in abbreviated form; I note the article itself emphasizes that his writings on marriage were "more cautious" than others', so I have continuing doubts about the importance of his marriage itself. I have noted in writing this that there is remarkably little in the article that specifically addresses the development of services in the vernacular, something I've always assumed to be a key legacy of Luther, and have expanded the second paragraph to cover a number of areas not previously included. I tried to compress the language wherever possible. I was tempted to put in a statement that the religious wars that began during Luther's life reshaped Europe and many European countries, but there is no discussion of this in the article. I did note that Luther didn't just influence subsequent Protestant thinkers, but also the Counterreformation; I think it is important to note that he had not inconsiderable influence on Catholicism as well as Protestantism. I am not wed to this addition; anyone who disagrees should feel free to delete it. Please, I hope all who are more knowledgable than I will fix up any misstatements or inaccuracies I may have introduced. This is just a proposed first draft.

I have rewritten somewhat in here the section we are referring to as "Luther and the Jews"; I found the reference to "full publicity" jargonish and replaced it with more straightforward language. Since I see this as the only section where POV is at issue, I view coming up with a resolution to it as the main reason for rewriting this. I have added a reference to the historical debate; I've been reading up on the debate and think it is an important subject in its own right. Sam 15:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is far better in terms of tone and more encyclopedic, and no longer absurdly deals with hymns quite so far high in the article. I think this is the right, nonpartisan summary style to use throughout the article. However, it does not deal with the anti-Semitism issue at all adequately or with proper emphasis. --Mantanmoreland 15:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Plese be specific. I believe the language is preferable to what was there before. In terms of emphasis, this is exactly what I'd proposed. Sam 16:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, much improved from the current intro. It addresses tone, flow, and gives due weight to pertinent topics. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 16:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, a significant improvement. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I see a few little problems with spelling and the like have been caught, but if anyone sees a way to further improve it, or wants to try out a somewhat different approach to address any issues, that's what the Sandbox is for. Please feel free to make changes to fix any shortcomings you see. (and I now note more substantive changes have been made - please check the differences to see how the proposal develops, and please let us know here what changes are being made). Sam 18:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Luther's anti-Catholic, anti-papal ravings

These too are not reflected in the article. Note the following:

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." The Mass "stinks of oblation." Luther said of the Bull Exsurge Domine, which formally condemned forty-one of his propositions, the following: "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" (The Catholic Encyclopedia [1913], Vol. IX, art. "Luther").[3]

This omission needs to be rectified, and hopefully an editor with more knowledge of the Catholic view of this can step forward to assist. Unfortunately I have a deep engrained feeling of inferiority on Catholic subjects.--Mantanmoreland 15:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• I've thought about this; I view myself as reasonably knowledgable about Catholic History, Catholic doctrine, and Catholicism. The article already notes that Luther referred to the Pope as the "Antichrist", and I'm not sure how much clearer you can be about his level of hostility. Considerable attention is given to disputes with the Catholic Church and the Pope; it is a defining theme of the article. I don't believe increased attention to the tone of the debate, however, would be either encylopedic or otherwise helpful, and it would certainly not be helpful if it just focuses on Luther. First of all, we'd need to discuss the tone of rhetoric on the other side, and we'd need to discuss the extent to which many of his criticisms were justified; the Pope is still issuing defensive statements about indulgences based on the sting of 500 year old criticism. You will find rhetoric that is just as strong from internal critics like Savonarola; a new book by Lauro Martines, Scourge and Fire: Savonarola and Renaissance Florence is a good read on these issues. (Though the Wikipedia article on Saonarola needs a rewrite and maybe a POV tag - excuse me for saying this, but it sounds like it was written by someone looking to make him into a Lutheran). Remember, too, that this is one of the strongest eras of the Inquisition, and, indeed, the Roman Inquisition was targetted at Luther's followers. For a good review of some of these issues by a well-balanced Catholic intellectual, I would suggest A Concise History of the Catholic Church by Thomas Bokenkotter, and I'm happy to add some limited discussion along these lines. However, I would strongly oppose anything more than a footnote quote or two, preferably balanced by similar treatment from the other side, and actually think the article did a pretty good job on these issues. Sam 16:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you take issue with what I've quoted? Is it inaccurate? I think this needs a mention and surely as more than a footnote quote or two. That said, I would like to hear other views on this. I don't want to be more Catholic than the Pope, if you'll pardon the expression.--Mantanmoreland 16:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I take issue with that first sentance in particular. With the Catholic Encyclopedia, you get the official version from Rome, which is in the uncomfortable position of having to defend one of the least glorius periods of Papal history in 2000 years. Luther certainly hated Leo X; does that mean he hated the whole Catholic Church, which he fought so hard to reform before he split? Sam 16:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

In his latter period he seems to have ratcheted up his views on the issue, much as he became a fiery Jew-hater.--Mantanmoreland 16:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could flesh out here what you'd like reflected: (1) That his tone was often harsh? Is that not currently reflected? Is it just the harshness you want reflected? (2) Or are you suggesting that he was "anti-Catholic" in the way he was "anti-Semitic"? Please explain this further if this is the case, and tell me how you think they are similar, and what made him "anti-Catholic". As always, specificity rather than broad-brush is appreciated. Sam 17:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Re-read my first comments on this topic. Simple enough.--Mantanmoreland 17:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not. Feel free to explain if you wish me to consider your point. Otherwise, I have addressed it. Sam 17:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Then, don't consider it. I've been as plain as can be. Something significant needs to be mentioned. I'm not going to repeat myself. As another editor correctly noted in a post responding to a similar one by you two days ago, "there is an endless going over and over of the same points in an effort to wear people down. Stop it." I suggest that you heed that recommendation. --Mantanmoreland 18:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to propose language to address your concern; as I have shown, I am happy to attempt to draft to address stated actionable concerns, or to express clear reasons why I disagree. Otherwise, fear not, I'm done with this topic until added clarity is forthcoming. Sam 18:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I tried to be clear, and I am not going to be drawn into repetitious discussion, which has plagued this talk page long before either of us arrived on Wiki. I find that when I "clarify" and then re-clarify and then re-re-re-clarify items on Luther-related talk pages, I am drawn into a maelstrom of useless, repetitive, frustration discussion. I'd like to get some fresh views on this subject, and have solicited same from people familiar with Catholic issues. These are total Wiki strangers and I haven't the foggiest idea if they will agree or disagree on this, in the small chance they decide to wade into this maelstrom. If no response in a reasonable period of time, I'll insert language to make up for this deficiency. --Mantanmoreland 18:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

In the interests of giving this a careful review for disagreements and potential POV issues in conflict with Roman Catholic teachings as I (an admittedly liberal layperson) understand them, I have started to look at different statements in the article, pulling some books from my shelf. I began with the discussion of indulgences.

I thought the discussion of indulgences was fairly good (the article gets the definintion of indulgences right, which I'd bet no more than half the secular historians do - it is drawn from the Catechism), with a few exceptions: the bit of poetry attributed to Tetzel "As soon as the gold in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs" seem to be regarded by many as a clever bit of satire put in his mouth, not words documented to be spoken by him; and there are some who argue that there was no actual "sale" of indulgences, merely of letters which were a precondition to the ultimate indulgence, which required as well an act of contrition. However, the Catholic sources I reviewed accept that there was widespread abuse of indulgences, by whatever name called. See both the Bokenkotter cited above and Schreck's Compact History of the Catholic Church (the two most read general histories of the Catholic Church). I have not found a "Catholic" discussion of the Elector's relics. If no one objects after a period, I will make the change to note the Tetzel poetry is satire and to add cites and a bit of clarity on indulgence abuse versus sale. I'll also cite the Catechism. I'll do this with other sections as I have a chance. (Also, I endorse personally the language Mantanmoreland added; it avoids the anti-Catholic statements and focuses on the diatriabes against the Pope, and uses the quote I thought was most historically relevant from the 1913 encyclopedia). Sam 01:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sam, and I just want to say that I regret if anything I've said in the Talk pages have inadvertently caused offensive to any of the editors here. Clearly I shoot off my mouth too much. Well, there will be an end to that! Henceforth I shall post only sparingly to the Talk pages and devote my energies to improving the articles.--Mantanmoreland 02:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. In the end, if we focus on producing a good article rather than winning an argument, I am convinced even the toughest issues will work themselves out. Eventually. Sam 02:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Sam, thanks for doing this spade work. As time permits, I'll do the same. One caution on the definition of indulgences. We need to watch for doctrinal development as we check such things. For example, I avoid the usual "five solas" description of Luther's theology, since only "sola fide" has been found in the mouth of Luther. He taught the doctrines involved, but he did not speak about them in that way. We need to check the Council of Trent for language from Luther's opponents.

I've not seen any source that challenges the Tetzel jingle, but several that quote it. To be honest, I've not looked into it, so I'm not sure what contemporary scholarship does with it. Do you have a source or two I can dig into? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 02:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Tell me if I get too technical or dontrinaire; it would undo the things that are good about this article. Last night, I carefully re-read Bokenkotter's chapter on Martin Luther, which I recommend to anyone interested in this article who wants a Roman Catholic perspective. It is remarkably on all fours with this article; issues, if any at all, will be nits, and any footnotes I add from that book will generally support current points and language. It may be a good place to look for guidance on more compelling prose in some places (for example, he is very good and more concise on the three seminal works of German Nobility, Babylonian Captivitiy, and Freedom of a Christian). I do not propose adding it, but he has a pretty colorful quote, which he sources to J. Todd, Martin Luther (Paulist Press, 1964), from communication by the Pope (likely written by another) to Luther, calling Luther a "leper and loathsome fellow ... a dog and the son of a bitch, born to bit and snap at the sky with his doggish mouth... having a brain of brass ... " (I do note that Bokenkotter, focusing on the history of the Roman Catholic Church, does not address Luther's attitudes towards Jews and Judaism; and, after all, he has enough trouble figuring out how to handle issues involving Rome's attitudes towards Jews and Judaism). Sam 14:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"Proper" distinction between Law and Gospel

I'll double check, but I think the word "proper" belongs to Luther. If so, I'd argue to put it back but rewrite in some way to show that it is Luther's view. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 02:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Just putting it in quotes would do the trick. I wasn't sure how important it was to the meaning, and am trying to be extremely sensitive to the charge that this article shows other biases, even if they are not being identified, as I review. Sam 14:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I've found reference to it and tried a little different way of putting it. This doctrine is very important in Luther's theology of grace. If you'd like, I could document further. The bottom line for Luther was he believed that Catholic, Reformed and Anabaptists claimed the law saves in some way, and that the Gospel was a new law. For Luther, confusing Law with Gospel led to works righteousness. Hence, it is central to his theology. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 17:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"Once the coin into the coffer clings..."

Dear Sam:

Both Kittelson (103-104) and Bainton (60) include this quotation, attributing it to Tetzel. They cite Walther Köhler, ed. Dokumente zum Ablassensstreit von 1517, 2nd. rev. ed. (Tübingen, 1934), 125, 127. as the source. I'll check further as time permits. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 14:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll find the book that made the point when I'm at home tonight; I saw other books that included cites like this, or to a paraphrase, so I'm not disputing that a number of scholars put the words in his mouth - but can we find the ultimate source, where the words come out of his mouth? The Catholic Encyclopedia, which, granted, is a 1913 partisan source, says the words are consistent with Tetzel's Frankfort Treatises; I look at it and think the rhyme in English is simply to good to be true (fyi, do either Kittelson or Bainton give us a Latin version of the couplet)? By the way, I think this is far too technical a point and far too widely used a quote to in any way constitue POV, it's just historical fly-specking. Sam 14:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Sam, but I am a librarian. 8-) I love this kind of thing. Do send me the cites and I'll go looking for it. I pull Grisar and see what he says. You'll be interested to know that the English varies between the two versions. The only thing in common is the "ings" and the end of both lines. I'll fetch the latin source. My Latin is passing, but I always have to have lexicon nearby to do much more than locate a quote.--CTSWyneken^(talk) 14:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

by the way, Grisar, a turn of the 20th Century catholic historian, says he sees no evidence that Tetzel used the jingle, but it would be in keeping with his misstatements of church ductrine on indulgences. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 00:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Title of section Luther and Antisemitism

There was an attempt last night to reopen discussion of the title of the section "Luther and the Jews", and I'm not sure where in the archive's the discussion is, but it's somewhere in there. The title has been bothering me, for two reasons: (1) generally, Wikistyle is to avoid repeating the name of the subject of an article in the subtitle; and (2) the discussion really seems to be focused not on broad relations between Luther and the Jewish community or Judaism, but on what Luther's attitudes towards Jewish people are. I'd propose renaming it something like "Attitudes toward Jews and Judaism" myself. Can someone provide the link to the archives? I sense I may be wading into a swamp where there is a long and difficult history, but since the issue was raised and since I've had trouble with the title myself, I thought I'd chime in. Sam 14:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The discussion is here in archive 4, here in archive 5. I'll keep looking for other places. The reason for the title being "Luther and the Jews" is that the subject is widely known by this title. Although your version of the title is fine, I would prefer to leave it as is to be consistent with the topic's description in the literature. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 15:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I object to the change of the section name proposed by Doright for these reasons:

The topic of the section is generally known in the literature by the title, "Luther and the Jews"

The section includes all of Luther's words and attitudes towards the Jews and not just those considered antisemitic.

Our main article goes under this title and the section should be a summary of it. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 20:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with these views. This was mulled over before. It should be left as it is.--Drboisclair 23:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Current title of section and article does not accurately reflects content, which is clearly and obvious about his anti-Semitism. Current title reflects minority POV re Luther and anti-Semitism. The history of this discussion indicates it was moved to the current title in error by user "Sam Spade." Easy enough decision -- change the title back to what it was. Slam dunk. Better late than never. --Mantanmoreland 11:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This may be, but the title should be broad enough: Luther and the Jews is the broader category, which would allow dealing with more issues. What about material in Luther's pro-Jewish work like "That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew" (1523)?--Drboisclair 16:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

All of these objections have already been previously made and addressed ad nauseam. --Doright 19:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus for the change. Please do not take unilateral action on a subject where emotions run high. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 19:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you're having difficulty with your emotions running high. However, the WP article content cannot be controlled by your emotions. Funny how actions you don't like are termed "unilateral," but your own actions are what? --Doright 20:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ with the editor here too. If one looks at the post in question one can see that CTS was speaking in a general way about emotions. He was saying nothing about his own emotions. I thought I would add that clarification.--Drboisclair 20:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I have to say that "Luther and the Jews" kinda has an unfortunate band name ring to it, and for some reason makes the song "B-B-B-Bennie and the Jets" start running repetitiously through my head.... Silliness aside, the section isn't really about Luther on the one hand and about "the Jews" on the other, so "Luther and the Jews" is a misnomer. The section is more precisely about Luther's ugly statements about Jews, which are arguably antisemitic. Maybe a compromise would be to call the section "Luther's writings against the Jews". --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 22:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

As MPerel says, this section really isn't about Luther and the Jews, but rather Luther's anti-Semitic statements and prescriptions. The title is inaccurate and misleading. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jayjg that "Luther and the Jews" is inaccurate and misleading. It's about Luther's anti-Semitic statements and prescriptions.

MPerel, I agree with you that Luther and the Jews is a misnomer. Also, it does play well to the tune BBB Bennie. lol, that's funny, seriously. However, we don't have many citations calling Luther's statements "ugly," but we do have many referring to him as an antisemite and his writings as antisemitic. That's what the section is all about plus the important role he has played in the propagation of antisemitism and its history. What do you think? Do you agree that the title "Luther and Antisemitism" is more accurate than "Luther and the Jews?" --Doright 23:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do think "Luther and Antisemitism" is more accurate than "Luther and the Jews", but I think "Luther's writings against the Jews" is also more accurate and less polemical and would be my first section title choice. I also think it's better to let quoted sources describe his antisemitism instead of having Wikipedia draw that conclusion for the reader. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

MPerel, I'm pleased that you agree "Luther and Antisemitism" is more accurate than "Luther and the Jews." I also agree that it is important to maintain a neutral tone and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions from the cited sources. However, I do not agree that "Luther and Antisemitism" is polemical. There is not a single source cited that denies Luther's writings express antisemitism, even though some editors have gone to great lengths in obscuring this simple fact. By antisemitism I mean [this.] If by "polemical" you mean argumentative, combative, contentious or disputatious, those descriptions certainly apply to how the title is received by certain editors. However, I don't think they should dictate that we violate NPOV. Is it not an NPOV violation to use a euphemism or whitewash what all but a fringe group accepts as true? Again, no one of any note denies Luther's [anti-Semitism]. If it is "polemical" to title this section "Luther and Antisemitism," then one might ask if it is "polemical" to categorize this article under the anti-Semitism category and then if such a category should exist. Is it polemical to call a spade a spade? Is anti-Semitism a taboo word that we dare not speak? And then one might also wonder if polemical is really what you meant or if I misunderstood you. Yet, I do not deny that there may be some advantages to your recommendation. I'm trusting you will accept my comments in the positive spirit of collegial inquire that I intend. --Doright 01:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, since you invoke MPerel, are you agreeing with MPerel that there should be a compromise name for the section? Or advocating the name proposed by Doright? Sam 22:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The section is -- or should be -- about more than just Luther's antisemitic comments later in his life. His earlier call for tolerance of the Jews also belongs here. Whether we like it or not, the title "Luther and the Jews" does both this and ties into the title used by many articles and books on the subject. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 00:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

"Luther's Writings Against the Jews" strikes me as a good nonjudgmental compromise. That is the central focus of the section and of the separate article. Whether or not he said some things not hateful to Jews is beside the point. --Mantanmoreland 00:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, the reality is that Luther's views about Jews wouldn't have any notability at all if it weren't for his extreme negative writings against Jews. It's these negative writings that need to be given due weight, though the other stuff could be mentioned. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, whatever name it should be, "Luther and the Jews" isn't it, as many have pointed out. Also, please stop inserting peripheral material into the section in an attempt to sway the title name. Martin Luther's writings about the Jews are only notable because of their extreme vitriol; his other comments regarding them are unimportant. Furthermore, the attempts at whitewashing have again turned this section into nearly a full article; please recall that this is a summary of a complete article, and thus should be no more than 3 paragraphs or so. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Jay, would you support returning the article to its summary state of the last week or thereabouts in June?

I haven't looked into it in detail, but what I don't support is further whitewashing in the intro of Martin Luther and the Jews. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not whitewashing. If Wikipedia is to be NPOV, then the material is not whitewashing. There is a cart load of a lot of material that condemns Luther. We are told that this is the overwhelming consensus of scholars. Does that mean that other voices of scholars who have done the research are to be drowned out? That is POV.--Drboisclair 01:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Inaccurate citation of Sherman in Luther and the Jews Section

I've checked the Sherman quote cited in this section. It is inaccurate. The first portion of the quote is from Carter Lindberg, whom Sherman himself is quoting. It also does not fully represent Lindberg's statement. Sherman summarizes Lindberg's view to include, among other things, that Luther's "anti-Judaism cannot be compared to modern antisemitism."

If someone else has the essay, please feel free to correct it. If not, I will fix it in a day or so. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 12:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Allegations and POV

The Sherman quote is perfectly accurate despite CTSWyneken's denial.

CTSWyneken claims: "The first portion of the quote is from Carter Lindberg," whom he claims "Sherman himself is quoting." However, Sherman does not use quotation marks. Yet, CTSWyneken claims Sherman is quoting Lindberg. Go figure.

CTSWyneken oddly claims: "It also does not fully represent Lindberg's statement." Yet, last time I check, we were citing Sherman, not Lindberg. Sherman does point out regarding the work that he does cite, "Tainted Greatness: Antisemitism and Cultural Heroes," "In fact, Luther (the only pre-twentieth-century figure to be included) is dealt with in the very first chapter . . . ." According to Sherman, the book "presents an expose of the covert or overt antisemitism of some of the most prominent intellectuals in modern culture." --Doright 19:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If there is POV on one side there is POV on the other side. The quotation needs to be quoted in context. If Carter Lindberg is being quoted by Sherman, then that needs to be pointed out. It is inaccurate to say the least to quote Sherman quoting Lindberg and stating simply that you are quoting Sherman. I think that it is important that quotations not be made to say what they do not.--Drboisclair 19:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not use inflamatory language. All I am pointing out is that the selection is inaccurate. Carter Lindberg's view is being quoted as if it were Sherman's. My point is that we are saying we are quoting Sherman when we are quoting Lindberg. Here is that paragraph from which it is taken (italics are from the text):

Lindberg is also somewhat sympathetic to another such denial by explanation: the contention that since Luther's antipathy towards the Jews was religious rather than racial in nature, his anti-Judaism cannot be compared to modern antisemitism. It woudl of course be an anachronism to apply the term "antisemitism" to Luther, since it was only invented in the nineteenth century. But neither can it be maintained that Luther's writings against the Jews are merely a set of cool, calm, collected theological judgments. His writings are full of rage, and indeed hatred, against an indentifiable human group, not just against that group that his action proposals are directed.

Here Sherman is summarizing Lindberg. What follows in our next quotation is Sherman's argument. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 19:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no interest in being drawn into yet another endless cycle of nonsense going nowhere. You have been rebutted. If you think it can be improved without pushing your POV beyond the limit, I suggest you make your changes on the talk page first. Then, after consensus is achieved, cut and paste it into the article. --Doright 20:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ with the editor. CTS has not been rebutted.--Drboisclair 20:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Siemon-Netto's status

The disparaging of Dr. Siemon-Netto is an action that is inconsistent with Wikipedia practice not to sit in judgment of sources. He has an earned doctorate. Please stop removing quotation from his work. To remove it slants the article.--Drboisclair 16:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Old territory (except for the alleged Wikipedia practice of not sitting in judgment of sources, which is a new one). See [4]--Mantanmoreland 16:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether or not one sees him as an historian. He is still a Ph.D., who has done his research in this field. This will never be resolved until Wikipedia principles are followed, i.e. not to sit in judgment of creditable sources. The only reason to oppose him is if one disagrees with him, which is to push a POV. I understand that one should evaluate sources, but if all checks out, it may be included. In this case it is necessary to balance the article in accordance with WP:NPOV.--Drboisclair 16:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Making use of the material

The quotations from Drs. Siemon-Netto and Brecht should remain, and editors should work with them to make the article NPOV. The Brecht quote is very critical of Luther. Brecht is acknowledged Luther scholar, who has cut the mustard.--Drboisclair 16:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The generality of Shirer's statement

With respect to the Shirer quotation that was just introduced: one can see that Mr. Shirer has not read Eisenmenger. To say that Luther's writings were "unequaled" ignores Eisenmenger. This comes from writing before one has all one's facts. Happily, Dr. Siemon-Netto has done the research as has Dr. Wallmann. Oh, and I forgot to mention that Mr. Shirer was a journalist, but he also was a top rate historian even though he did not have a degree in history.--Drboisclair 18:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Additional quote (more available) from Shirer added to make his statement more specific.--Mantanmoreland 18:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That is always helpful as quotations must never be taken out of context. They are still general, and some "Protestants" might demur to Luther being called the "founder of Protestantism." Is the journalist speaking or the historian?--Drboisclair 18:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That lengthy quote from Luther is interesting, but much too long and unencyclopedic. Why not trim it a bit? You can do that without falling into 3RR territory if you added it.--Mantanmoreland 20:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

True, but since we are expanding this section: it might do to leave it in extenso. --Drboisclair 20:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That's the problem. You see, then the opposing POV quotes will be lengthed, and there will be no end to it. A good quote, as I said, but it will convey the same meaning and if anything be stronger if edited down. What you have now is such a large block of text that it is self-defeating.--Mantanmoreland 20:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point.--Drboisclair 20:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

King James Bible

Removed from article per WP:Ver. Citation requested 1 week ago, none provided.

His translation significantly influenced the English King James Bible.

--Doright 22:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Courtesy would dictate leaving the sentence in the article. I would appreciate it if the editor would stop vandalizing the article. As to the editor's accusations of violating WP:POINT they are groundless as are the editor's other charges. --Drboisclair 23:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the WP:POINT charge myself. What was the quote supposed to be demonstrating? This is why communicating via curt edit comments is much less useful than taking the time to spell out something on the talk pages. Sam 23:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sam, Since you are keen on communication, what does WP:POINT have to do with King James Bible? --Doright 00:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Drboisclair, Courtesy and WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL and WP:FAITH would dictate that you stop claiming that editors are "vandalizing the article" when they make edit you don't like.--Doright 00:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I could request a simple, civil answer to my question? Sam 00:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I must have missed that one - feel free to point me to it. But, on your own edit summary, I'm curious what point you believe Dr.boisclair was making through the quote he added. As to edit summaries about "vandalizing", I put those in the same category as the other curt edit comments that seem to show up here all the time. Sam 00:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sam, I'm having trouble keeping up with you. In your 00:28, 12 July comment you appear to be responding to your own prior comment and engaging yourself in dialog. You say, "I must have missed that one." I have no idea what you are referring to. Missed which one what? It's very confusing. So let's take it from the top and perhaps you can simply answer what all this has to do with Luther and the King James Bible? That would be a good start toward communication. I'm beginning to suspect the answer is: absolutely nothing. But, I'll keep an open mind to see if you can connect the dots for me. --Doright 04:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The only WPPOINT comment I saw was yours, in the edit summary relating to the deletion of a Martin Luther quote. That was the WPPOINT comment that drsboisclair was referring to, and the one that I am baffled by. I have no idea what WPPOINT comment has been made regarding the King James bible. I have not seen a WPPOINT comment made on the King James Bible, so I cannot answer your question. I asked why in your edit summary removing this quote you made this cryptic WPPOINT comment. Sam 10:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sam, not answering the simplest of questions with a simple straightforward answer (e.g., what are you referring to when you said, "I must have missed that one," or what is the connection between your WP:Point question and the King James Bible), your disparaging request that a "civil answer to my question" be provided, the admonition regarding "curt edit comments" immediately following Drboisclair personal attack accusing me of vandalizing the article in concert with [this similar attack] against another user is reminiscent of the style demonstrated [here]. It strikes me that posting things like [this] without looking does not assume good faith and is part of the reason this entire page is simply painful to read . However, despite the mounting evidence to the contrary, I will continue to assume good faith, but not ignore bad behavior. That being said, the answer to your question that is obvious to other editors is stated [here] in the thread of the appropriately titled talk section. As absolutely none of this has anything whatsoever to do with the King James Bible, out of respect for other editors, I will not respond further to this off topic discussion in this section. If you require further information, I suggest you discuss it in the proper section. --Doright 17:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

For now, I do not mind the move of the KJV point here. In the flurry of activity here, I just haven't had the time to track down a cite for this one. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 00:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Source Discussion

The following discussion developed across talk pages today and is being moved here because it is relevant to the page. Note that there were two strands of dicussion, which I've tried to reassemble below. I have edited a couple posts to delete redundancies created because the conversation was going on accross pages (e.g. phrases like "I responded on the other page...") and I've omitted a couple entries that were irrelevant to the discussion. Sam 23:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sam: Please take a look at: this edit summary. Do you agree, especially with the characterization? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 13:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me for what will be a long-winded response. I have been holding my tongue on these issues very consciously, since, among other things, I like to really know what I am talking about before I weigh in. But, since you have asked, I will answer (and I would answer and answer the same way regardless of who asked).

I have not read Siemon-Netto, so I don't have a strong view on the quality of his work. He is on my reading list, but it is a very long list and I haven't gotten to even tracking down his CV and seeing what is easily available. I have read Shirer, and my view of Shirer is that he writes an exceedingly good book, and that, for a journalist, he is reasonably careful on historical issues. I think Manmoreland's summary overstates Shirer's credentials as an historian, though it should be obvious that Shirer is one of the more important popularizers of history around and he is more careful about his work than many popularizers. My understanding is that Shirer follows, to a great degree, A.J.P. Taylor on these issues (though, again, I would have liked to have done more spade work on this before making that conclusion). A.J.P. Taylor is both a very thorough and very controversial historian. While I personally would not hesitate to cite him, any cite to him is likely to result in an ad hominem attack against him, which I view as regrettable, inappropriate and inevitable. In terms of statements on the relative credentials of historians, I posted some thoughts in the FAC process, the bottom line of which is I see no need for any credentials to be recited in the body for any scholar.

I believe there are good ways to get a rough measure of the weight accorded to academic works within the profession. The first and most useful is to look at reviews in academic journals. Reviews of individual books are useful, but broad historiographies by authorities in a field are even more useful. I had earlier posted two reviews I found, one of Shirer and one of Siemon-Netto; I will see if I can find that posting. A second approach is to look at how they are cited in academic journals (not just how many times, but also how favorably). Siemon-Netto, of course, will be cited less frequently because he is more recent, but still, a pattern of regular favorable citation in academic journals establishes legitimacy. But it is also essential to read these authors before judging their work. Obviously, the question of the underlying causes of the Holocaust is among the most important questions of our time, and there is an enormous body of work on it, and some level of survey of that body is essential to determining importance and legitimacy of scholarly work. Establishing credibility requires much spade work, reflecting the fact that good history is hard. Sam 14:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. What I'm driving at is that Siemon-Netto has academic credentials and should be treated with respect. It is easy to get into a game of trying to attack the reputation of scholars. The last time that this man was attacked, I showed what going over vitaes with a fine tooth comb could do by looking at the background of Paul Johnson and Robert Michael. To say it mildly, it was not well received. But for some reason, editors on this subject want to go down that road constantly.

I would prefer to accept the published opinion of people respected for their scholarly and research skills. From that point on, we consider if they represent a majority or siginficant minority opinion.--CTSWyneken^(talk) 15:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't believe everything in writing, even in academic journals. And I have not gone through the debate with a fine tooth comb, only skimmed what has been presented to me. But, given the academic credentials cited, I wouldn't attack Siemon-Netto myself without reading him and having specific unsupported viewpoints or otherwise showing inadequacy in his work. I do not take criticism that does not display a reading of the criticized very seriously, and it is not clear to me that his critics have read him (they may have, it just isn't clear from what I've read so far). On the other hand, to support him, I would recommend that you check book reviews in academic publications, citations in academic journals, and perhaps even citations in some of the later works they are citing. You also may consider going to the points you're citing and highlighting his own sources. So, I have no reason to believe he is not a credible, top shelf academic worthy of citation, and I do not question his citation, but, not having read him, I can't tell you if he is someone I myself would rely on or recommend to others. If others have read him and have specifics as to why he falls short, that would be more useful than what I've seen thus far. Sam 15:25, 11 July 2006 (UT C)

Grunberger not Shirer.--Mantanmoreland 14:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry; I confused authorities debated over. I've been mulling over this whole dust-up on sources. So, my views on Shirer are thrown in. My views on Grunberger: I read what was assigned to me during an upper level history course on Resistance Movements during World War II, and it seemed a good book written for a general audience. I wouldn't hesitate to cite it. That brings up another way of getting to underlying credibility: something that shows up on course syllabi in specialized history programs. Sam

Also note previous discussion of this subject, which I believe was in Year 26 of this thirty-years editing war. [5]. The same battle erupts every time a major historian is cited in a manner critical of Luther, and a minor historian is thrown in to offset and push the pro-Luther POV. I appreciate your efforts to be fair here but this eternal editing conflict is unlikely to be solved by your efforts. I speak from experience on that. Just a word to the wise, to lower your expectations and so you don't start ripping out your hair as I did approximately ten days ago.--Mantanmoreland 15:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is one way of making the distinction. I.e., major, recognized notable historians are on course syllabi, as compared to minor, unrecognized, non-notable journalists whose works are published in religious journals and specialized publishing houses for the audience of one particular religion. Also this whole subject has been discussed before, as noted on your talk page. Putting Siemon-Netto in the same class as Grunberger is only slightly more absurd than putting him in the same class as Shirer.--Mantanmoreland 15:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Remember, I would have preferred to have held off weighing in on this, and am about to head off and get some work done and let everyone else at it. That having been said, have you read Simeon-Netto or done some of the spade work yourself? There are very good historians out there working in narrow areas with small followings. Sam 15:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, I am thoroughly familiar with his work. However, I don't think it is necessary for Wikipedia editors to be nerds the way I am. If it did, I and other nearsighted, hunchbacked fools such as myself would be running Wiki, and thank heavens it is not. There are other criteria to judge reliable source such as the ones you cited. Otherwise you shut out the viewpoint of good and objective editors who want a neutral and not biased article.

This skirmish in the 30 years editing war I think needs to be fought on the relevant article talk page. Also I would suggest again that you read through the discussion here [6], in which this very subject was discussed. The issue is the view of Source X by objective, third party sources, not the personal opinions of Wikpedia editors or whether or not Wikipedia editors have read every word by every source cited.--Mantanmoreland 15:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Moving it would be a good idea; I'm under the gun on something, but if no one moves it by tonight, I will. FYI: I don't think it's necessary for us all to be nerds (but good to see the club is strong) to edit, but I do think it is important to know the stuff before attacking it. So, what should I read to see these flaws in all their glory? Sam 16:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

My personal opinion doesn't matter. Let's see some third-party, objective sources indicating that this person has any status at all as a historian or scholar. Anyway, I'm signing off for now. If you want to move, fine, but please try to advance the discussion over what was previous and not go over old territory.--Mantanmoreland 16:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Renaming the section "Luther and the Jews"

I am placing my comments here as all new comments should be put at the end of the page. If it were a choice between "Luther and Antisemitism" and "Luther's writings against the Jews" I would chose the latter as being the more NPOV of the two. Jayjg and MPerel have indicated above that they preferred this title if not for my reasons. I disagree with Jayjg that Luther's other writings are not important. This is not true: No less a person than Haim Hillel Ben Sasson in his A History of the Jewish People (vol. 2, p. 323) has implied that Luther's That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew of 1523 had more influence in the three centuries that followed than his On the Jews and Their Lies of 1543 or his Vom Schem Hamphoras. That means that this section should not be made so narrow that it excludes Luther's writings that were favorable to the Jews. Jayjg has also pointed out that the section should be a summary: there is a whole separate articles Martin Luther and the Jews that deals with the topic; however, when more and more stuff is put here that advocates a POV this necessitates adding material that is from a balancing POV. We should keep the name as it is since it deals comprehensively with everything Luther wrote about the Jews and we should return to the well ordered version of mid-June. If more needs to be said there is the other separate article.--Drboisclair 01:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• • After listening to different proposals here for a couple of days, and after making myself sit down and read through, line by line, "On the Jews and Their Lies", here is where I come out:

First, I am absolutely opposed to any change that is not done with broad consensus. I believe a higher level of consensus should be sought for issues relating to this section.

Second, I think Drboisclair is right that Luther's other writings relating to Jews and Judaism are part of the article and should be referenced in the section, and that Doright is right that actions of Luther, not just his writings, are part of the article and should be referenced in the section. The goal is comprehensiveness.

Third, the title should include reference to anti-Semitism. While I do not advocate changing this until someone has gone through the difficult task of engaging in a dialogue on the issue and convincing others of their case, particularly one or more of the Lutheran scholars who have worked so hard on this article as a whole, I think that the publication of "On the Jews and Their Lies" is, today, an important moment in the history of anti-Semitism. Having read the points made, I have not been convinced that there is any reason to avoid the word, but am open to that discussion.

Luther's name should not be in this or any other heading for wikistyle reasons.

So, my conclusion, the best name for this would be "__________ and Anti-Semitism" or "___________, Anti-Semitism and ___________"; the blanks representing some terms relating to Luther's other writings and/or other actions. However, whatever that name is should be selected by broad consensus, and no change should occur yet. Sam 13:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Summary State of Luther and the Jews Section

Dear Jay: I'd recommend we return to the state of the section as it was June 23. Does this look good to you and others? If not, is there another point to which a rollback would be acceptable?

If so, I suggest we merge into Martin Luther and the Jews anything that is in the current state of the section here that is not already there. We then replace the section with the version. We'd add a commented out plea to discuss before changing the section, esp. by expansion. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 02:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that this is the best way to go here. The section should be a summary of all Luther wrote about the Jewish people.--Drboisclair 02:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The older summary reads much better than the current one, and includes most of the themes. One way of solving this would be to maintain the crisper presentations but to add footnotes as people see fit with additional quotes to buttress their points. If there is a theme in the current discussion that does not exist in the earlier version, and someone can clearly identify it, it might be appropriate to add that, but I do not see it. The current language has become a jumble of quotations strung together that read very poorly, and so obscure everyone's points. Sam 03:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Better to summarize the current version than to turn the clock back, methinks. Better quotes in the current one.--Mantanmoreland 13:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The advantage of returning to the above state is that it was generally accepted text. It is also in summary form, which is what an encyclopedia is all about. The suggested version gives the basic information about the subject and links to the fuller article, where anyone interested can get more detail and all the quotations our editors wish to add.

Once we've returned to that version, we can adjust it, of course. I would strongly recommend, however, that we talk out any proposed changes here first, or we will be right back here again. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 14:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It is nonsense to suggest that the version at Time X at 23 June, out of the 20000 or whatever versions, was "generally accepted." That was just one skirmish in the middle of a 30-year editing war that continues to this day. But even if it actually had been the reflection of a moment of calm on the editing battlefield, the current version still has far better quotes and is a better starting point for condensation.--Mantanmoreland 14:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed; if it needs to be cut down to size again, then just do it. Wikipedia is a wiki; that means it changes. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It hasn't been all of 30 years, unless you are comparing it to the 30 Year's War of 1618-48. The section should be summarized pure and simple. Both sides of the issue should compromise about the tidbits of quotations put into it. Having studied Luther for many years it is my considered opinion that narrowing it to "Luther and Antisemitism" or "Luther's writings against the Jews" is inconsistent with summarizing and comprising the whole body of Luther's writings concerning the Jews. Luther also wrote That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew in 1523, which was not a writing against the Jews. Rabbi Sasson has said in his History that this was an influential document. If the section is labeled "Luther's writings against the Jews", then it would not fit here. We would have to have two sections: "Luther's writings against the Jews" and "Luther's writings favorable to the Jews". Why not just have it as it was decided upon within the last six months. Let's be objective about this.--Drboisclair 17:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did not mean literally thirty years (though I stand corrected if that is so). A long-running edit battle.--Mantanmoreland 17:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The history of this article began in 2001 when it was first created, and there was a debate at that time about Luther's writings about the Jews. The good thing about it is that it can inform a comprehensive summary in this article, linked to the special article.--Drboisclair 17:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the second edit introduced a paragraph on anti-Semitism. The third edit condensed it, the fourth edit expanded it, and so on until this day.--Mantanmoreland 17:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Jay, I'm not saying things do not change (especially on Wiki). What I'm suggesting is it is a good place to start. It would be a lot quicker. Roll it back and then ask what is not satisfactory about it. We would then modify after talking it out. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 17:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

CTSWyneken, I really don't see the use in repeatedly asking the same question that has been asked and answered so many times. What part of this answer do you not understand:

"Better to summarize the current version than to turn the clock back, methinks. Better quotes in the current one."

To this, Jayjg's response, "Indeed; . . . ."

Of course, Jayjg or anyone else can correct me if I'm wrong. --Doright 19:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Doright, what is the point behind the above post and the one in the section below? Let's focus on the issues. If you think a point I've made is repetitive, simply ignore it. If you think there's a new aspect, answer it or ignore it. Turning the discussion to editors and away from the issues is not helpful. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 19:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The points are clear. And for the perhaps the 1,000th time, please stop your attacks. Stop implying that I'm not focusing on the issues and am turning the discussion to editors (which is exactly what you have done here). Interesting how often your charges are a projection of your own behavior. Perhaps, you can now focus on the question I asked above: What part of the answer to your question do you not understand? If you think the question is helpful answer it otherwise ignore it, but stop the gratuitous attacks. --Doright 20:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not understanding why you think the rolled back version is better than the current one as a starting point, aside from procedural reasons. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Mostly procedural. It starts us in summary state. I think it would be much easier to work together from that position rather than debating what to cut. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 20:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

In editing tis easier to subtract than to add. Besides, this version has good quotes from authoritative third-party scholars. --Mantanmoreland 20:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Mantanmoreland is right; it's easier to cut down than bulk up, and the sources in the later version appear to better. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

If everyone is game to go that way, it will be fine with me, as long as we keep all viewpoints represented and the amount of quotation to a minimum. This is, after all, a summary, not an article.

May I suggest, however, that we gain consensus here before we make changes to the article.

To get us started, might I suggest we invite someone from completely outside of this debate, with a rep for even-handedness and no interest in the subject itself, to bring proposals?

If the above is agreeable to all, may I ask Jay, Slim and JPGordon to suggest someone? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 22:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggested once that certain editors recuse themselves for specific reasons, and was met with a barrage of objetions. Now you are suggesting that every editor who has edited this page recuse him or herself, for no reason? Surely you jest.--Mantanmoreland 22:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This proposal is intended to give us some kind of chance of reaching a form of this page that everyone can live with. What I have proposed is that we discuss before editing, that the changes be suggested by someone all can respect and that we come to a consensus here. I am not suggesting that anyone leave the discussion. In fact, I have no problem with proposals, all long as they can be done without attacking people, something Doright and you seem not to be willing to do.

So, how about it? Are you really interested in a solution? Or do you just want this to go on for years more. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 01:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You're the only one "attacking people," so stop the foot-stomping. It's getting old. Short answer: your proposal is a nonstarter.--Mantanmoreland 12:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe he is suggesting a couple of things: (1) that a process be set up to move this to a full discussion of the issues, with changes made by broader consensus; and (2) that a higher level of civility be sought ought. I am not sure what the harm is in trying this for a few weeks. If he is the only one "attacking people", the second point should be both easy and a relief. Sam 13:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and that process has been discussed and isn't acceptable, since it is based upon a version of the article at an arbitrary point in the past selected arbitrarily by the reverend, and because it involves shifting the editing to editors TBA, all for no good reason. As I said, a nonstarter. So let's move on.--Mantanmoreland 13:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, an element in this proposal was that Jay, Slim and JPGordon propose that person. I also do not believe this proposal, as set out in the latest postings, required that the section be set back in time. As I read it, we could start with the section as is. But, no matter, it sounds as if there is at least one active editor who will not participate, and I do not believe such a process will work without broad participation. Sam 14:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

CTSWyneken's "proposal" is actually a counter-proposal (on the heels of my existing request to Slim) that has the undermining effect of discouraging SLimVirgin from putting forth the considerable effort required to do [this]. I hope she will not be dissuaded.

Despite Sam's suggestion that the reason CTSWyneken's counter-proposal is of "no matter" because of Mantanmoreland appropriate response, the simple fact remains that CTSWyneken's counter-proposal can be nothing more than a charade, if there is no explanation showing how it stops editors from responding as they have in the past to text they find personally offensive, do not agree with or contradict the position of their employer. --Doright 16:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops, there's an ad hominem contrary to WP:CIVIL accusing an editor of charading and again the accusation that an editor is being paid to edit. This is uncalled for, user:Doright. Please stop. Slim Virgin will edit as Slim Virgin sees fit as do all editors on this website. You always stir up trouble.--Drboisclair 16:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

What is "TBA": "to be assigned"? Since this is Wikipedia editors do not need to be assigned. It is an asset for those who are knowledgeable on a subject to edit that subject's articles. Editors for this article do not need to be assigned: they can just jump in.--Drboisclair 14:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "to be assigned" or announced and correct on the rest of your comment, which is why this dog won't hunt.--Mantanmoreland 14:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have always heard it as "to be announced". Sam 14:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Initial talk can be ambiguous.--Drboisclair 14:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

These things work themselves out on Wikipedia because as Jayjg has indicated: it is constantly changing as any living thing must.--Drboisclair 14:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The Luther and Antisemitism section

The Luther and Antisemitism section is not merely about what Luther wrote. It's also about what Luther did. For example,

"Luther was not content with verbal abuse. Even before he wrote his anti-Semitic pamphlet, he got the Jews expelled from Saxony in 1537, and in the 1540's he drove them from many German towns; he tried unsuccessfully to get the elector to expel them form Brandenburg in 1543. His followers continued to agitate against the Jews there: they sacked the Berlin synagogue in 1572 and the following year finally got their way, the Jews being banned from the entire country."

Also see [this] regarding the taboo title of the section that most editors believe is more accurate despite its troublesome effect on certain sensitivities.

IMO, User:SlimVirgin is among the best writers editing on Wikipedia and a sharp detailed oriented thinker. She is certainly among the most experienced. She previously demonstrated a willingness to do the hard work of integrating relevant citations into beautifully flowing prose, before taking a well-deserved vacation. Perhaps if the editors that repeatedly attack her will demonstrate a modicum of restraint, she may be persuaded to assist. I'll ask. --Doright 19:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point re actions as well as writings. The cited paragraph in itals should definitely be in this article, however sharply trimmed it may be.--Mantanmoreland 21:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that user:Doright makes a good point above about this section not only being about what Luther wrote but what he did as well. It is for this reason it should be "Luther and the Jews": that would cover comprehensively what the subsection deals with. It would also not be POV as "Luther and Antisemitism" would be. That would have Wikipedia making a judgment. As you can see from the present text: that is a matter of debate. Let the reader make the judgment.--Drboisclair 15:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to you literally over a dozen times (most recently twice in my paragraphs above), '"no one of any note denies Luther's [anti-Semitism]," when the term is used according to its ordinary meaning, i.e., hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group. There is absolutely nothing POV or controversial about this. --Doright 16:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)