Talk:Martin Luther/Archive 12

Luther and Antisemitism Paragraph

I'm puzzled as to why my revision of the paragraph is not acceptible. I received no objection to adjusting the language above and I did not change the content any. I believe it flows better and is easier to read. I'm restoring it to begin a discussion of the changes, but I'll not contest it being rereverted, providing some reason is given first and other agree. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 14:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

CTSW, did you not see the discussion on this page between several editors? We agreed on a certain version, after much debate and input and tweaks from various parties. You shouldn't just come along and change it as you see fit, and expect not to be reverted. The writing of the current version is better. It flows better. It makes more sense. The first sentence of the paragraph introduces the topic of the paragraph, as it should, unlike your version, which doesn't. The last sentence wraps up the whole intro well, as it should, also unlike your version. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Slim, the last time I made this argument, you dismissed it by saying that Wikipedia articles are open to improvement and discussion. Which is it? Please show me the courtesy that you expect from others.

As far as the discussion here, note that I was involved peripherally. So, yes, I read it. Note I also asked if anyone had objections to my making changes to move from passive to active voice, which I did. No one objected until you came along and simply reverted it without discussion. You do not like it when others do that to your work, so please do me the courtesy of discussing it here before you undo my work, done without objection, except by you.

Now, on to the paragraph. The version which you restored is:

Luther is also known for his writings about the Jews, the nature and consequences of which are the subject of much debate among scholars, many of whom have characterized them as anti-Semitic.[9] His statements that Jews' homes should be destroyed, their synagogues and schools burned, money confiscated, and rights and liberties curtailed were revived and given widespread publicity by the Nazis in Germany in 1933–45.[10] As a result of this, coupled with his revolutionary theological views, his legacy remains controversial.

My version is:

Luther's legacy is still controversial as a result of his revolutionary theological views and his writings about the Jews. The nature and consequences of his words are the subject of much debate among scholars, many of whom have characterized them as anti-Semitic.[9] Between 1933–45, the Nazis revived and gave widespread publicity to Luther's statements that Jews' homes should be destroyed, their synagogues and schools burned, money confiscated, and rights and liberties curtailed.[10]

There are several issues with the text you are promoting that I have attempted to change. First, the paragraph throughout uses the passive, which makes the text hard to read. The first sentence is long and awkward. It contains two main subjects. It is convoluted and tries to do the work of the whole paragraph.I believe my version actually sums up the subject better and connects with the rest of the article better. What do others think>

My solution was to change the passives to actives, split the first sentence, replace the relative pronoun with its noun and used the last sentence to make it comprehensible. I believe the result is much easier to read. I'm not saying its perfect, but I believe it is much better. What do others think? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 14:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The first version above is obviously better written. Your version starts with something that is not the subject of the paragraph. The second sentence refers to "his words" but doesn't say what his words were about (revolutionary theological views or Jews). And so on. Which passives did you change to actives? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Slim, it is only obvious to you that the previous version is better written than my version. The problems of passive constructions, and an overlong and complex sentence makes the previous version weak. If you can rewrite the paragraph without the passives, the long sentence and in a way that satisfies your concern that the first sentence in my version does not address the subject of the paragraph, please do. Until then, I'm afraid, we're at it's obvious to you that it is better written the older way and obvious to me that it is better written my way. I suspect that MyTwocents feels the same way. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 19:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

CTS, there's nothing wrong with using a passive construction where appropriate, as it is here. Your version suffers from a loss of clarity and a lack of flow. I hate to think that you're doing it to shift the focus from Luther's attitude toward the Jews, but that has been a persistent problem on this page in the past, as you know, so I hope you'll stop doing anything that could be interpreted as that problem returning. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Slim, I've been working with others for over a month now to reduce the size of this article and clear up language. Please stop leveling accusations. I thought we were beyond this.

In the case of this paragraph, the passives muddy the language of the paragraph in its prior version. They are not necessary, since there is nothing passive about Luther's words or the Nazi's actions, IMHO. They should go, in my opinion. The first sentence is muddy, awkward and hard to read. It should be split in two. I'd welcome suggestions, if you do not like the way I've done it. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 19:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Passives marked in bold above. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 19:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

My twocents, what did you mean exactly by "stronger tense" and what was the "redundant statement"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop changing a well-written paragraph to a badly written one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The previous paragraph was agreed upon precisely because it clearly stated the issue, and focussed on its subject. The proposed paragraph diffuses that focus, and leaves the reader unsure of the point. I object to this change, though I would not object to a change that actually improved the paragraph in some way. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Jay, can you explain exactly how it diffuses the subject? These words were almost exactly word-for-word in the last sentence of the paragraph. I'm puzzled because I think the change clarified the subject and makes for a smoother transition. At any rate, I am not committed to these specific words and welcome another attempt at improving the paragraph. Do you have some suggestions on how to get the passives out and the awkward first sentence broken up? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 19:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

How about this version which was summarily reverted today. It removes any POV pushing about the extent of any controversy and preserves CTS's active tense. I don't see how it's muddy?

Luther is also known for his writings about the Jews, the nature and consequences of which are the subject of much debate among scholars, many of whom have characterized them as anti-Semitic. Between 1933–45, the Nazis revived and gave widespread publicity to Luther's statements that Jews' homes should be destroyed, their synagogues and schools burned, money confiscated, and rights and liberties curtailed.

Mytwocents 20:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

That does take care of the tenses, thanks! The first sentence is still long. Do you have a suggestion on how we can break it into two sentences? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 20:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The passive construction is better because this is about Luther, not about the Nazis. Where did you read that passive construction is always wrong? Wherever it was, best not to follow its advice. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll not get into an ad hominem war with you, Slim. As far as the subject goes, the article is about Luther. The first sentence is about the way scholars interpret Luther's words. The second sentence is about how the Nazis exploited them. When we begin the sentence with the Nazis, the focus of the sentence goes to the subject of the sentence right away. The passive in the first sentence moves the focus from the scholars to Luther. Since the overall focus of the article is on Luther, this is OK, but not the best. It is simply easier to read if the sentence is constructed subject-verb-direct object. The rest of the sentence, however, is overloaded and has awkward syntax. It needs work. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 09:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

What was the ad hominem point?

(outdent)"Where did you read that passive construction is always wrong?" And now, below, "Please don't restart your circa year-long disruption of this issue." --CTSWyneken^(talk) 10:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is about Luther, the paragraph is about Luther, the sentence is about Luther, so it's correct to say "his writings were revived by ..." Please don't restart your circa year-long disruption of this issue. We had consensus. Leave it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Wait a sec. You said above that it should be passive because it is about the Nazis. Now it should be passive because it is about Luther? I don't think either of us is going to change on this one, Slim. I'll provide links to style guides, if you'd like. It is axiomatic that passives should be avoided. At this point, I'll await what others have to say. My position is unchanged. We should avoid passives wherever possible. I'd appreciate it if you would stop reverting the work of others simply because you do not like it. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 10:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue about this with you any further. Your obsession with this issue is unseemly and inappropriate. Please step back and allows others to deal with it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think both Slim and CTSWyneken have valid points here, maybe we can come up with something that is agreeable to both. I agree with Slim that some of the wording in CTSWyneken's version is awkward and doesn't read well (especially the "words" part), but I also agree that is it better to try to use an active voice where possible. How about this:

Luther is also known for his writings about the Jews, the nature and consequences of which are the subject of much debate among scholars, many of whom have characterized them as anti-Semitic.[9] Between 1933 and 1945, the Nazis revived and gave widespread publicity to Luther's statements that Jews' homes should be destroyed, their synagogues and schools burned, money confiscated, and rights and liberties curtailed.[10] As a result of this, coupled with his revolutionary theological views, his legacy remains controversial.

How does that sound? Kaldari 15:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That works for the passive, in the later sentences and I've agreed the passive in the first sentence is OK. However, the first sentence is still long and a bit convoluted. I'd like to see it broken up into two or three smaller sentences. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 12:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I favor the current version (as of 20:04, 24 October 2006) because it most clearly presents the subjects of both sentences as Luther and his writings on the Jews. CTSW, I understand your quibble about the passive tone, but I think your version is a bit more ambiguous. Kaldari, your version isn't bad but the second sentence makes a subtle switch of focus from Luther's writings to the Nazis. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to try a rewrite, MP. I find the whole paragraph as is difficult to read. As to the second sentence, it is about what the Nazis did with Luther's words, even in the passive. We're using tortured syntax the way it is. What's the use in spending endless hours in fixing the rest of the article, if we do not fix this problem? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 22:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Added a minor clarification that some, but not all Lutheran synods have repudiated Martin Luther's anti-semitic writings. Repentance

Many of them may not really be aware of them, I certainly never learned anything about them at all until I had been editing wikipedia for quite some time, and that's the equivalent of literally writing parts of an encyclopedia for months, its not the most common sort of knowladge base one gets in their life :/. The previous way it was worded was, however, quite correct, as it doesn't actually say that all of them have rejected it, whereas this way, there is now weasel wording, which doesn't give the reader any specifics. Homestarmy 02:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that many Lutherans are not aware of these writings. However, at least two synods have made motions, voted on, and issued repudiations. Other synods have not been so inclined. It is accurate, and very specific, to document those which have issued a formal repudiation, without implying that all, or even most have. We are still trying to document this in more detail. Until then, please avoid terms such as "weasel wording". Repentance 03:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The last comment on this discussion was on the 24th of October, I don't see how there's much "we" to be had. However, when I say "weasel wording", i'm not talking about a feeling of sniggering sneakiness or something more literal like that, I mean the wikipedia definition at WP:WEASEL, where "some people etc. etc." is explicitly cited. Homestarmy 03:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I will accept that you were using a nicer form of the phrase "weasel words". The specifics included in the article are any documented repudiation of Martin Luther's attacks on Jews that was issued by a synod anywhere worldwide, following a vote or proclamation by that synod. So far, I know of two in the U.S. and one in Germany. Repentance 04:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Martin Luther

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

In the "Genesis Tub" segment of Treehouse of Horror VII (an episode of the Simpsons), Lisa creates microscopic life out of one of her baby teeth and some soda. One of the "microdudes" nails a paper to the door of the cathedral. Lisa exclaims, "I've created Lutherans!"

Not the original ML, but cerainly a cultural reference. Any other cultural references? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 16:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

In principle, I wouldn't mind an article on the subject. There are whole books on the subject. I don't have the time for the major read-fest I'd have to do to do a decent job on such a subarticle myself. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 19:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Notes

please stop merging notes using named that are not consecutive

I received this note but can’t make sense of it. What was meant exactly?

What I have been doing is unmerging notes, and reusing and consolidating them. There were several citations in one note, making it difficult to understand and to reuse in other citations of the same source. For example, Tyndale ix–x was replicated in various parts of the text. Reusing them makes it clearer the same source is used, and easier to find at the references section too.

The CMS won’t apply here because it is not print. We are online, and must adjust for it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leandrod (talk • contribs) .

Thanks for coming by to discuss what you've been doing to the notes.

CMS is a comprehensive style guide that applies to both print and electronic texts. We have informally agreed to use it here. Please honor WP:MOS#Disputes over style issues which states that an editor should not change the prevailing style from one to another. This is important to me since CMS is the prevailing style in the historical discipline and because I have put in literally hours bringing the citations here compliant with it.

I'll be back later to explain why the consolidation program you have imposed here is not helpful and why splitting references as you have done is not helpful. For now, I request that you revert the notes you have changed in these ways, pending full discussion. They are not compliant with CMS. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 17:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

CTSW, you changed the text to CMS, so if you want to follow the guidelines, we should use the style that was in place before you changed it. It's really quite unusual to use CMS in Wikipedia, and Leandrod's point about consolidating references is correct: it means you can't see what's been reused. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

There was no style before I regularized it under CMS. As I recall, you said then it was fine. There has been no objection, much less debate, over my doing this. What I'm asking for is the common courtesy I should be able to expect under WP:MOS that the format remain the same.

I think there must have been a style beforehand because I recall you changing it, and all I said was that I wouldn't revert you, but that CMS is not widely used and not recommended in Wikipedia. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

We can go back in the history and look, if you'd like. As I recall, you asked about it when I began the process of regularizing entries. I believe you noticed because the format was stricter than is customary in Wikipedia. You did, however, if I remember correctly, come to stating you had no objection to such citation form. In any case, now I have put a lot of energy and time into making it compliant and would appreciate it being put back. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 20:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't care enough about it myself to change it, but if someone else wants to, that's fair enough. I did tell you at the time that it was over-fussy, that we tend to use APA, and that the WP article on CMS calls it "vestigial." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

As to the merits of what has been done, even apart from the fact that it is not compliant with CMS or any other style manual I know of:

First of all, there is no trouble telling when a reference is used a second time in CMS. The entry has full information the first time it is used. After that, the name of the author and page number are listed; author and title where more than one work of the author is cited in an article.

Second, consolidating references in this manner destroys the context of the notes. So, for example, with the Luther Bible section, if you are reading along, select the after the point on the Tyndale Bible, you are taken to the end notes. If you want to see what supports the King James point, however, the reference in no longer right after it. There is no way to quickly see if only one or two sources support the argument of the paragraph. To do so would require multiple clicks at reference numbers.

Third, we have been trying to reduce the overall size of this article by creating subarticles and moving data from this article to them, replacing it with summary text. It is now infinitely more difficult to do this, since now we have to range over the whole article to do it. More later. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 20:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If the reference style worked before, and it's been taken out of order now, how is that an improvement? :/ Besides, how unreadable could a large note possibly of been, wern't there semicolons in between each reference given in one note? Homestarmy 00:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

One day I'd like to work on the notes so that they take up less space, but I won't try that until the rest of the article is in something close to a final shape. In my opinion, we will eventually need to find solutions unique to Wikipedia rather than try to fully replicate the noting methods used in print; I also believe our longer scholarly notes unnecessarily ape scholarly articles, which encyclopedia articles decidedly should not (we are using footnotes to verify rather than to elaborate or append nuance). I do think there is a place for the "abcde ref name =" method when the same page or chapter is referenced several times, if only to prevent an endless string of identical refs making the bottom of the page look silly. This method does stick in the craw of people (myself included) who recoil from the idea of note tags in jumbled numerical order or the repeated appearance of exactly the same note-tag number in the text; however, I would argue that the advantages outweigh this initial dismay: we must evolve our own style, and mixed methods may need to be part of that since they afford flexibility.

I agree with CTSWyneken that the Chicago Manual Style is a valid style guide here. The Wikipedia Manual of Style often refers to it and endorses it, but only as one as several possible authorities (we will probably end up with a consensus hybrid style). I also agree with combined references, particularly where two or three sources are invoked to support a single point; the alternative is a row of numbers on the text, which is uglier. I admit that all methods except the long, repetitive string can make editing difficult, and cutting and transferring intricate and volatile; but for the moment this is a page watched like a hawk by several people, and so I'm sure references will be duly filleted, restructured, or restored where necessary, even if that does require a little more work. qp10qp 17:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping in. In my view this condensed method makes the notes impossible to work with, since it destroys the sequence of notes. Why have them at all if we aren't going to do them right? Most print encyclopedias do not have them at all.

There are solutions to long strings of ibids, by the way. One, not bother putting a note after every word, when the reference is to the same source and use a wider variety of sources. Right now, it is an impossible mess without getting link whiplash moving back and forth between references and text.--CTSWyneken^(talk) 22:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Link whiplash! (LOL) Well, this probably affects editors rather than readers, who probably ignore most of the notes.

I do think we need to make an effort to be open-minded; I expect that the notes will have to be restructured again and again in the future as new systems come in, the facility to hide notes, for example, or to combine notes and references less haphazardly.

Although I'm only too familiar with the scholarly approach to footnotes and feel at home with it, the truth is that Wikipedia encourages footnoting to improve verifiability of its content, to fend off accusations that because it can be written by anyone it is an unreliable source of information; so the criterion is to give references for facts, not to imitate scholarly practice (which I presume is what you mean by "do them right"); for this reason, your option of not putting in so many references would be a backward step: the more references, the better the verification of individual facts, and the better the fact-checkability. Your other suggestion of using more sources is a good one, but we are stuck with a lot of Schaff here at the moment, and for those of us without other sources he will have to do for a while until other editors replace him with more varied references.

I always look at the front-page featured articles to see how they do things, and they often use mixed methods, which seem to be acceptable to the featured-article judges. Here's an example: Alexander Vasilevsky. The editors there use string methods and horizontal methods combined; the only disadvantage, it seems to me, is for editors; to readers, does it matter if the note numbers are out of order or repeated?

Anyway, I'm not passionate about the matter, and I'll just go with whatever system is in place; but for the time being I do need to know if you intend to undo the "ref name ==" style notes or not, so I know how to format the references for the sections I'm working on. qp10qp 16:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Since I'm fairly much alone on this, I'm not going replace the condensed system with repeated old-fashioned quotes, but I'm going to work on replacing those that are out of sequence and am going to merge any two-to-a-point references.

As far as verification goes (one of the functions of notes in academia, as you know), one note at the end of a paragraph is typically sufficient. Most people realize this is the case. If someone is going to object to a specific point (as they did over Luther being a monk and teaching salvation by grace) we can provide alternate sources.

Of course, a lot of this is moot (here anyway) as we reduce the whole thing in size. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 16:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree that one note at the end of a paragraph is sufficient; it seems to me helpful to add a note for any quote, or unlikely, odd, or controversial-sounding fact in situ. I agree with you on two-to-a-point references; it's a good system and endorsed by Chicago MoS; I can't see anything wrong with it because it reduces the tags on the article, and the references can be moved or cut with the part they refer to.

Academic noting varies considerably; but in my opinion footnotes don't usually take the form we require in Wikipedia, which is, in effect, "here's where we got this from"; in print works, most of that is assumed from the end notes or book list at the back. Sometimes there's a touch of pedantic footnoting on controversial interpretations in printed material, but the guarantee with scholarly articles is the editing process, which is highly rigorous, by second and third parties (at least) who check everything before it goes out. Printed books and articles have the flexibility of both footnotes and endnotes, whereas we have to combine the two, which is necessarily messy. --qp10qp 16:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Picture caption

Is the long caption w/full birthdate and birthplace really necessary in the first picture? It causes a big gap between the intro and the table of contents. The full dates of birth are mentioned three times now in the article, and the places of birth and death at least twice. I'm shortening it to 1483-1546. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 15:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

hmmm, nevermind I see it's part of a biography infobox. Is that really necessary? I think it should just be a picture with a caption. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 15:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I can go either way. Some of the FA folks really like it -- that's why its there. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 20:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, it's probably not a big deal to just leave it, especially if FA people prefer it. It's likely most readers don't see the big couple-inch gap between the intro and the contents that I'm seeing. Between my browser, wide laptop screen, and smaller font, the picture ends up much longer than the intro paragraph. But most readers probably don't see that much of a gap. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 06:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I've semi-protected because the article seems to be attracting a lot of vandalism. However, as I've recently edited the page myself, if anyone would prefer an uninvolved admin to review the protection, let me know and I'll undo it and refer it to someone else. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem here. It has been kind of annoying recently. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 01:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Lutheran Church Bodies and Luther's anti-Jewish language

The claim that not all Lutheran Church bodies have repudiated Luther's words about the Jews is undocumented and not provable. It does not belong here. I'm not even sure the repudiations belong here at all, since they are really not about Luther himself, but individual church bodies. Produce a reliable, verifiable quotation before throwing a bomb into a now quiet article.

Where the details of the discussion of Luther's words really belongs, per the "summary style" guidelines, is in the article Martin Luther and the Jews. You will notice the repudiation of several churches are documented there. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 12:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like this is more than some WELS members can gracefully accept. Repentance 15:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Please cease the personal attacks. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 14:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to second that, CTSWyneken, though I have not been directly involved. Earlier today I added a template to the top of the talk page reminding users this is not an all purpose discussion forum. There are other places outside of WP for those discussions. Keesiewonder 14:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Shortening the Long Sub-Article on This Page

I notice that on this page one of the sub-articles is really long compared to the rest, to the point of sticking out like a sore thumb. I think the group of people working on this page need to cut that Luther and Anti-Semitism section down to proper size. There are two other articles about the subject on Wikipedia, so I see no reason why linking to them isn't sufficient. You don't need this lengthy and wordy sub-article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.162.188.243 (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

The anti-semitism section needs to be condensed. It is meant to serve as a brief overview for the forked 'Luther and Anti-Semitism' sub-article page. Mytwocents 18:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. From my perspective, such "condensing" amounts to hiding the information from public view. This takes several forms, such as deleting links to the full text of "On the Jews and Their Lies", to "hiding the links to the WKP page on "On the Jews and Their Lies" "in plain sight", to replacing quotes from "On the Jews and Their Lies" with watered down paraphrases, to moving such material "to a more approriate article" (which is often one with much less viewership). I have mellowed (somewhat) from my previous attempts to feature this in the "Lutheranism" article, but there is evidence that most people, and even most Lutherans, do not yet know the full extent of ML's writings, and the real effect that they had on human lives. We should probably discuss it more. Repentance 18:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the so-called deleting links to the full text of "On the Jews and Their Lies" due in part to a copyright violation?!? See the next item on this talk page. Keesiewonder 18:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. See below. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 19:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with 172.162.188.243 and Mytwocents. Information pertaining to Luther, Jews, and anitsemitism is prominently featured in the Martin Luther article already and includes readily available links to two other articles on the topic. If readers are not savvy enough to find the breadth of information on this topic Repentance is hoping they'll see given these tools, I don't think making the Martin Luther article even longer is going to help. If we were to do what it sounds like Repentance is suggesting, we should advocate one single WP article, containing **everything** from aardvarks to Zoroastrianism, and more. Keesiewonder 19:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I am somewhat surprised at a reluctance to "make the article even longer". What is wrong with that if it makes it more complete and informative? It all pertains to ML. There are several facets to Martin Luther's life. Why would anyone want to spin these off into seperate articles? From my perspective, a description and analysis of Martin Luther's works belong in the ML article. Putting them elsewhere has the effect (perhaps intended)/perhaps not) of distancing him from some of the works that people believe may not be representative of "the real" ML. We currently have articles on Martin Luther, Lutheranism, Martin Luther and the Jews, Martin Luther's On the Jews and Their Lies, and perhaps others. I will not take offense in your suggestion that "I want one single WP article, containing **everything**". I obviously do not. I do however prefer that there be one article on Martin Luther, not several, to compartmentalize the good from the bad. I may have to give you more examples of what I see happening here. Do you acknowledge my point at all? Repentance 20:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe it silly to have a huge sub-article like this within the main article. There are in fact two other articles on Wikipedia dealing with the same topic and it is very obvious that there is a lot of axe grinding going in in the sub-article, from both points of view. Check any other encyclopedia out there and you won't find an article on Martin Luther that contains such a long section on antisemitism. It's just plainly silly. It's time to shorten it. Justas Jonas 21:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not reluctant to make the article longer if it indeed makes it better while truly articulating a neutral point of view. Keeping WP:LENGTH, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT all in mind is probably our best bet. I expect there are important aspects to the man, his life, his writings, his faith, the Protestant Reformation, the denomination that bears his name (agaist his wishes, if I remember correctly), etc. that are missing from the article - missing while the antisemitic perspective shines loud and clear in the current rendition. There are virtually an unlimited number of other writing arenas where you may turn if you wish to elaborate on your perspective and not be reigned in by colleagues with the NPOV mantra. Why not use your energies to write something scholarly for publication if you feel an online, collaborative encyclopedia is not meeting your needs? Further expanding on antisemitism in the article on Luther, in my mind, is akin to altering the article on global warming to have a predominant section on environmental skepticism. Yes, anything verifiable is important ... but in moderation. Keesiewonder 21:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a related issue: I notice that this article is a former FA candidate. Has it ever been a FA? Our goal here really should be, or at least should include, gaining FA status. I also noticed that when looking at the sub-page with the discussions from the candidacy that in about 6 months time, the article has grown by 20 kb. Keesiewonder 22:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments. I have much to write in response, and will probably not have the time now to put it all down now (most of us have many other facets to our lives). I have learned already (the hard way) that calling something "silly", especially twice in the same short message does not give credibility to anyone's message. Of course, traditional encyclopedia articles would never mention any significant connection between Martin Luther and antisemitism. They were in the business of making a profit. Millions of people identify themselves to be Lutherans, and have done so ever since they could talk. Who would give up that market share? Wikipedia uses a different model. It is free of commercial constraints. It has an obligation to the truth only. It is also a very new creation. Most articles are still being added to. They are expected to grow. Wikipedia is not limited by printing costs, or conservation of natural resources (we are not killing electrons, or 1's and 0's, when we add documented truth to the article). When an anonymous writer complains that "one of the sub-articles is really long compared to the rest" and "people working on this page need to cut that Luther and Anti-Semitism section down to proper size" it reveals something. Something that works against the purpose of Wikipedia. On the issue of proportionality. How many words are contained in Luther's 95 Thesis? I counted about 2700 words (English translation). Compare that to the quoted 60,000 words of "On the Jews and Their Lies". That is one example. We could then compare the effect of these two works. The millions of people who were killed in Germany and other counties in the 1930's and 1940's might argue that "On the Jews and Their Lies" had a more permanent effect on them. Why would any impartial person even care that "one of the sub-articles is really long compared to the rest" and "people working on this page need to cut that Luther and Anti-Semitism section down to proper size"? The answer should be, and in fact is obvious. For those just joining this issue, I am not an outsider, although I acknowledge that many of you will consider me to be one. Like most of you, I will attend a Lutheran church tommorow (the last Sunday of the year), as I do almost every Sunday. I know you. I know the church. I go to the same seminars that you do. I also use terms such as "Post-Modernism". There are some significant differences. I call myself a "Christian" instead of a "Lutheran". I appreciate the reforms that Martin Luther helped launch, but I am aware of enough of his hatred that I do not think it is appropriate to have his name on the door, his seal on the flag, celebrate his birthday, etc. The reform is not over. I have witnessed facts deleted from this, and other, articles. I have seen catagories deleted even before I could add text to them. I changed the misleading phrase "Luther spoke of..." to the correct "Luther wrote...". I advocate quotations instead of watered-down paraphrases. Now I see the attempt to delete facts (undisputed) from the article for the reason that the article is "really long" and that want to cut it down to the "proper size". It is alway the same material that they want to hide. I know that there are different "expressions" of "Lutheranism" that exist. I have attended churches of all three major Lutheran synods in the U.S. There are some major differences. They were formed, and reformed, in controversy. Congregations and Pastors were severed from the church many times. I have tried to document that process in the Lutheranism article, but it was deleted before I could even add a few opening paragraphs. Guess who deleted it. Some of the same people who want to "trim" the "Luther and antisemitism" material from the Martin Luther to the proper size". Some synods have formally rejected the hate writings of Martin Luther. Some have not. I tried to change the misleading text in an article that still reads, "Lutheran church bodies have distanced themselves from this aspect of Luther's work." to "Some Lutheran church bodies have distanced themselves from this aspect of Luther's work.". It was labled "vandalism" and immediately reverted. It obviously more accurately describes the truth. Guess who deleted it. Some of the same people who want to "trim" the "Luther and antisemitism" material from the Martin Luther article to "the proper size". I know that this is hard for some people. It may take a very long time to break free from some this. Have you noticed that "Lutherans" are singled out by commedians and politicians more than other denominations? Any idea why that is? Sorry for this hastely written reply. Repentance 00:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

"Repentance" has provided helpful insight into his POV and therefore I do not believe he is qualified to edit the section of the article under discussion. It is clear that he has axe to grind on the issue. This isn't rocket science. The sub-section is too long and is trying to provide a lengthy debate on Luther's anti-semitism, etc. I like the way it is trimmed back now. Let's see if I can make this point more clear. THERE ARE TWO ENTIRE OTHER ARTICLES CLEARLY LINKED TO IN THIS ARTICLE that provide more than enough attention and information to this issue. The purpose of the article is to provide a broad overview of Luther's life and work. It asserts his antisemitism, documents it and comments on it. No need to entertain such a long discussion of it that is entirely out of proportion with the rest of the article. You could easily make every section very long as well. I've studied the history and while other sections have been trimmed down, this one persists in staying long just because some people with a POV, one way or the other, want to keep hashing over their debate about Luther's antisemitism. Keep it simple. Keep it short. People who want to learn more detail can easily find it.Justas Jonas 01:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I have edited the Luther article 3 times. Each time was to revert blatent spam from an IP address user. That, to use an oft repeated yet ineffective word, is obvious to discerning readers and editors. Keesiewonder 01:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note that much effort has been put into making the whole article fit the WP:FA summary style recommendations. I've stayed away from this section because this issue has been repeatedly fought out in edit warring. I agree that this section should be much shorter (I advocated a two paragraph version that was in place about a year ago, with little success. What I would recommend is that we return to something like it and move the bulk of the detail to the "main articles" appropriate to them -- as I have done with other sections of the article.

On what encyclopedias have to say or not say -- they have many faults, but editing writers to increase sales is not one of them. For the most part they are fairly neutral. On Luther, the editors writing above are correct, where his comments on the Jews are mentioned, they are given about as much space as our lead does. The interesting thing I've found is that the antisemitism articles give Luther little space as well. This pattern follows over to biographies of Luther, which, even though book length, give on the average less than a chapter. It is a ugly part of the reformer's life and not the only one by far, but not all that important in the judgment of his biographers.

That is all I have to say on that matter. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 01:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, then, let's get busy and get it shorter and keep it that way. Yes, Luther was antisemitic, a son of his times. Yes, he said horrible things about and against the Jews. Yes, the Nazis ran with these 16th century remarks to vindicate their plan to kill all Jews, something Luther never advocated. All that is said in the article, which notes Luther's antisemitism in the introduction already, then again in what was too long as a sub-section. The two separate articles on Wikipedia go into enormous detail on these points. It is silly to argue that by shortening the sub-section here anything is being "covered up" or "hidden" or "denied." Keep it simple. Keep it short. Justas Jonas 02:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah ... My apologies CTSW; I did not mean to infer that you have not made champion efforts and edits to this article yielding a nearly FA status. My cryptic point/thought was more that lengthening the antisemitic aspects would certainly do little to bring it to FA status. Thanks for your observation about antisemitic articles mostly saying little about Luther as well as Luther's biographers not belaboring the issue. What I recall on this is that the bulk of Luther's most antisemitic statements came relatively near the end of his life ... I need to check on that, but that is what I remember off the top of my head. Keesiewonder 02:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This page degenerated quickly and reflects badly on all Lutherans. Januar22 04:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure did. The cure looks worse than the illness. Glückliches Neujahr 05:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You let him provoke you into acting very poorly. You deleted other people's contributions as well. This will come back to bite us. PT44 07:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I like the Revision as of 18:14, December 30, 2006 by A.J.A. AJA condensed some of the deleted text into one sentence. It fits with my idea of what the section should cover and helps balance the page by trimming a overly large section. The deleted content is covered in the sub-article. Mytwocents 07:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

No need to apologize. My point was just that we're moving in the direction of a shorter condensed version. On the "come back to bite us," I'm sure it will. Any major change brings out a whole bunch of folk. I favor the two paragraph version of about a year ago, but do not mind any version that is much shorter and makes the points on both sides of the debate. I would rather, however, have the material moved to the sub-article, not deleted, and the characterizations of who the scholars quoted are. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Where does "SlimVigin" get off reverting a perfectly legitimate edit with no explanation of this action? I suspect this person is one of the handful of people who spend most of their waking hours on Wikipedia trying to push the Jewish POV at every opportunity. It is disgusting. Johann Friedrich 04:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Johann, assuming you are referring to this revert, I have to say I have been wondering the same thing about why there was no discussion. If I were to speculate about why this may be the case, I'd offer the possibility that it is because SlimVirgin is an administrator. As I understand things, being an administrator on WP does not extend privledges to such unexplained reverts on controversial articles. I am somewhat new here, so I don't know all the history of the development of this article or the discussion behind it. Nor am I good at quoting various WP policies. I have been closely following the discussion to this article and the article for the last month or so though, and, from that, do share your concern about the revert. Keesiewonder 10:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Folks, let's be careful not to personalize all of this. It is difficult to do, as a stroll through the archives will show. Slim, and about six others, seem to think this is most important aspect of Luther's life and so merits including every little detail of it here and elsewhere. I disagree, as do just about every scholar specializing in Luther and the Reformation, but do not have the time or energy at the moment to duke it out with her. She also doesn't seem to think she has to justify her actions. So, if you do not like them, keep reverting them. Be aware that you are not likely to win this one -- others will likely arrive here to see to that. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You do understand, I hope, that you have just made a general call for edit warring. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Not my intent. My advice is to just forget it since it is futile. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 16:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Rather than seeing this degenerate to the edit warring that accompanied the last attempts to revise this section, my suggestion is that the article as a whole be nominated as a Feature Article. An enormous amount of good work has gone into this article, and it has come a long way since its last nomination, in which it did reasonably well. While I would prefer to see the Antisemitism section shortened, per summary style, with any removed material moved to the other articles on the subject, and while I continue to have the same issues with the citations in the section that I'd highlighted six months ago, the section is now at least stable and reasonably balanced among editors' viewpoints. The FA process would let disinterested editors weigh in and perhaps even take on the editing necessary to respond to any comments.Sam 19:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I am not interested in an edit war. I feel that is pretty clear from my actions to date and any correspondence of mine visible on WP. If it is not, please discuss with me. I would like to see this article at FA status, and would like to contribute to that accomplishment. My sense is that as the article exists at this moment, it is not a candidate for FA, so, while we could nominate it, it may not be the appropriate time to do so. I remain concerned about what appears to me as a relative newcomer to be an unexplained revert to this article by SlimVirgin (see my last post on this page), an editor of this article who also happens to be an admin. If someone would like to point me to the WP policy on admins participating in controversial edits, if there even is such a thing since admins are, naturally, also editors, I'd appreciate it. Meanwhile, privately I'll read up on some of the feedback from previous article review processes for this article and the role model that admins should/could set when editing controversial articles. Kind Regards, Keesiewonder 00:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright Vio of Bertram translation of On the Jews and Their Lies

I have removed the link to the full text of this translation recently added to the article because the text is under copyright and the holder has not given permission for the work to be made available on the internet. The issue here are the same as with the text discussed here, at On the Jews and Their Lies and Martin Luther and the Jews. See Talk:Martin Luther and the Jews/Archive 2#Copyright and On the Jews and Their Lies - An Outside Opinion and Talk:Martin Luther/Copyright of Luther's Works#Summary and Update about Copyright and On the Jews and Their Lies. I'll add links to other discussions of this issue as time permits. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 23:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Excessive wikilinking?

Is there a Wiki movement to wikify every day of the year, even for access dates in references? I can appreciate a wikilink to a year, but ... feel it is getting out of hand if we do it for every month-day combination. I will likely remove these ... unless someone kindly advises me that it is against policy or something. Thanks! Keesiewonder 02:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is (against guidelines) at present, see WP:MOSNUM, because dates need square brackets markup to respond to user prefernces. The hope is that, at some point, changes in WM software will either automatically format date layouts, or provide an alternative markup. Rich Farmbrough, 09:29 5 January 2007 (GMT).

Ok. If I understand Rich correctly, to follow current guidelines, every "month day, year" combination must be wikilinked. Even if that same date has been wikilinked earlier in the same article. And even if it is an "accessed date" displayed as part of a citations list. Then, I will implement that in this article. Unless I hear that ML editors in general don't want that. Keesiewonder 10:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If you've never altered your preferences you might not understand fully. On your Preferences page under the "Date and time" tab you can choose one of five "Date format" options. What has this pleasant triviality to do with linking dates? Nothing, logically. Sadly, the MediaWiki software is not logical. If we write "June 30, 1905" as the date on which Albert Einstein transformed time into space-time, then every user for all time will see exactly that date format, with name of month, day, and year in that order. But if we write "[[June 30]], [[1905]]", with wikilinks, then I can set my preferences so that I see this as "1905 June 30" if I wish. (If you'd like to try it, here's "June 30, 1905" without nowiki tags.) As it happens, 1905 has special importance in the history of modern physics, as the year in which Einstein published revolutionary papers on diverse topics, the Annus Mirabilis Papers. Consequently, I might in this case actually want a link, and not the default link to the year, but a link to the article on those papers. Once again the software is badly designed; "June 30, 1905", which includes such a link, does not get the date formatting. In a logical world, linking and date formatting would be two separate options, each with its own markup. Plainly, we do not inhabit that world. --KSmrq^T 13:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Understood! :-) There are 2 reasons why dates *should* be wikilinked. 1) For the reasons KSmrq clearly outlined (i.e. the date and time preferences set by the user). 2) It is WP policy per WP:MOSNUM as Rich has quoted. Thus, unless I hear significant objections from editors of this article, I could conclude that moving all "month day, year" dates in the ML article is what we *should* do. Keesiewonder 23:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like another editor has already implemented date wikilinking per policy. Keesiewonder 11:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Note 60

In the last edit series, the citation info for this note was lost. Does anyone know where this is from? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 22:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Now 65 & 75, due to the revert/restore? Keesiewonder 23:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Try this:[1]

I think the current 65 is 86 in this version , and the current 75 is 98 in that same version. Keesiewonder 00:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Blanking

Please do not blank well-cited and relevant material from the page that was stable for a long time. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Good to see you here, Humus! Please look at the discussion above. This was not blanking, but an edit to move the section to summary style. I'm not committed to this particular form, but it does need to be reduced in size, especially since much, if not all, of the material is in the Martin Luther and the Jews article. Also, I've repeatedly been told that stability is irrelevant by those who took this from two paragraphs to article within article length.

Would you be willing to take a crack at it? I believe your to be a fair broker and think you could come fairly close to an ideal wording. I would think a two to three paragraph summary to be sufficient. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 14:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I placed a 'move section,' tag above the section, as it stands now. I think that CTSWyneken's condensed version, in light that there are two sub-articles is the best version. Any statements that need to be expanded upon from his edit (that has been reverted to the longer version, as I write this) cand be added to the sub-article. We should revert to CTSWyneken's condensed version. Mytwocents 19:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no consensus to change to the condensed version and it's inappropriate to incite people to revert war to force the change. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't reverted anything. We should keep the condensed version, but some people insist on reverting to a long-winded section that contains text that is covered on the sub-article, and offer zero reason for reverting. That's how a revert war is started. We need to reach consensus, and that takes discussion. Mytwocents 20:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The condensed version is a new change (a quite substantial rewrite) that has not achieved consensus, therefore you should not appeal for a revert war to force it (i.e. "We should revert to CTSWyneken's condensed version."). --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You are the one who uses the term edit war, which begs the question; Why was the condensed edit of the section, which required thought and work, simply reverted to the previous longer version, which requires no thought or work, just a few keystrokes? Why was that done without any discussion or reason in the edit summary? Reversions serve to undo thoughtful, insightful, good-faith edits with no regard for the work of the previous editor, as opposed to an edit, that in this case made a section more concise and reflected the more in-depth coverage on a sub-page. To me the condensed version has more value, because it represents an improvement by design. If anything, owing to the sub-article, the Luther and anti-semitism section could be condensed to a few sentences, and the issue would be sufficianlty covered. Mytwocents 21:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If some editors mull shortening this section, I suggest starting with inane sentences like "To suggest that Lutheran theology turned Germans into Nazis is a false charge that simply cannot be substantiated by the facts." Beit Or 20:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Beit, please do not insult the words of a scholar. There are very strong opinions on all sides of this issue and our job is to represent them all. This is best done in an article on the subject alone, not here.

Folks, please note that the condensation under discussion is not mine at all. In my opinion, the two-three paragraph version of a year ago is about right.

I'm not going to argue the points in this section all over again. I do not have the time to do this. I've been working with others to meet the standards in WP:WIAFA and Wikipedia:Summary style. Any good faith attempt at applying these standards to the section will be welcome. I've suggested that Humus take a stab at it, and since you're back in this neighborhood MP, I'll suggest the same to you.

For this reason, I've restored the merge request, which deserves a fair discussion. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 20:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Beit, please do not insult the words of a scholar. There are very strong opinions on all sides of this issue and our job is to represent them all. This is best done in an article on the subject alone, not here. + :: Folks, please note that the condensation under discussion is not mine at all. In my opinion, the two-three paragraph version of a year ago is about right.

What is a good answer to these perfectly legitimate points?

would sincerely like to hear what people's specific, detailed and well articulated responses are to the following very legitimate observations offered earlier? And saying, "You can't change it because we've already talked about it." The point is that the sub-article does very much stick out like a sore thumb in terms of its length. I think it finally makes Wikipedia look rather silly actually. That's my .02 as simply an observer:

THERE ARE TWO ENTIRE OTHER ARTICLES CLEARLY LINKED TO IN THIS ARTICLE that provide more than enough attention and information to this issue. The purpose of the article is to provide a broad overview of Luther's life and work. It asserts his antisemitism, documents it and comments on it. No need to entertain such a long discussion of it that is entirely out of proportion with the rest of the article. You could easily make every section very long as well. I've studied the history and while other sections have been trimmed down, this one persists in staying long just because some people with a POV, one way or the other, want to keep hashing over their debate about Luther's antisemitism. Keep it simple. Keep it short. People who want to learn more detail can easily find it.Justas Jonas 01:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with current summary. WP:NOT#PAPER. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that it is not a summary. In fact, WP:NOT#PAPER makes that point, too. It is article length itself and duplicates to a great extent Martin Luther and the Jews. We are trying to bring the article to FA state, which requires summary style. The edit you saw as blanking was an attempt to do just that. I'm not arguing that the info or even the text of this section go away, just that it move to the sub-article in keeping with these standards and guidelines. Would you be willing to do a revision that accomplished that? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 12:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Note ."<ref name = "Noble" />

This has floated about due to the sudden... activity... the reference is lost. Would someone please restore it? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 20:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we have lost this; I (in cryptic form, sorry) suggested above what I thought was missing. For the article that exists at the current moment, I'd say that the citation that belongs for # 67 is as follows:

<ref>Graham Noble, "Martin Luther and German anti-Semitism," <cite>History Review</cite> (2002) No. 42:1-2.</ref>

If no one objects, I'll try correctly reinserting it myself next time I check in to this discussion. Regards, Keesiewonder 00:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Steven Gerrard?????

Is this "sentence" an accurate citation?

Luther's hymns, including his best-known "A Mighty Fortress is Our God," inspired the development of Steven Gerrard, congregational singing within Christianity.

Steven Gerrard? WP has an article on a modern soccer player by this name. My Bainton book is in storage. Is it time for a disambiguation link for Steven Gerrard? Is there spam in this sentence? How about deleting "Steven Gerrard," ? Keesiewonder 01:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

vandalism. I removed it. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 01:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Education in the 16th century

Maybe this is a dumb question on my part. Please be kind. If someone received a higher education degree in the 16th century, did they really refer to it as a B.A. or an M.A.?

He received a B.A. in 1502 and an M.A. in 1505, placing second out of seventeen candidates.

Worthyness of red-linked folks?

How noteworthy are the 9 (currently) red-linked gentlemen in the ML article? 6 of these 9 are only linked to by the ML article. 1 is additionally linked to one of the major 'see also' articles that is mentioned in the ML article (Richard Steigmann-Gall). 2 are linked to by maybe 1 additional article; if so this may beg for a new disambiguation page. (See Franklin Sherman, Ronald Berger). How have we been deciding who gets a red wikilink request, and who doesn't? There are certainly several authors currently cited who are not red-linked that could be. If I had to vote without doing any further research, I would recommend we un-wikilink 8 of these 9, leaving Richard Steigmann-Gall red-linked. Thoughts? Keesiewonder 02:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• No opinions on this other than mine? Keesiewonder 12:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I prefer not to link to non-existant articles. The purpose in wikipedia is to encourage the writing of new articles, but I don't see how that is possible for most things which are so linked. I'd favor delinking them. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 13:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Citations

Where are we with this topic today? (I do see and have skimmed the section above on "Notes.") Most of the articles I've frequented on WP have ISBNs or ISSNs in the reference lists. I am not wed to a particular citation style, but will admit to knowing APA far better than CMS. Does anyone have a problem with me passing through our current reference list and adding ISBNs or ISSNs? Is doing this against the current CMS formatting style? If I make what I would feel would be an enhancement to the article by adding this cataloging information, please know I do not intend to change the current formatting style. So, if it is important to you, please suggest how you would like to see this proposed, new information appear. And, if I have missed an at-length discussion before I arrived here, please just kindly point me to the archive number I need to be in to bring myself up to speed. Thanks! Kind Regards, Keesiewonder 03:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no problem with us adjusting the style we use. I've used CMS because we need a consistant style, it is the accepted style in the disciplines of history and theology and it is capable of handling very complex citation situations. I'd like to stay with it for the most part for these reasons. While ISBN and ISSNs are not a part of that style, they can be somewhat useful if someone wants to get a hold of an item. The bottom line is that the citation be accurate (we've had one user cite a database abstract as if it were the article it summarized), able to help us find an item and the exact place in it quickly and be consistant throughout. Our problem here has not been too much info, but too litte. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Pending feedback from others, I'll then begin adding ISBNs and/or ISSNs. Staying with CMS is A-ok with me. No-one need worry about my citations not being accurate ... I am kind-of a stickler on them myself, though not a pro and certainly capable of human error. I've spent a great percentage of my time on WP to date editing citations and obliterating citations deemed invalid by SmackBot. Keesiewonder 12:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Putting People in to Categories

The article Hitler's Pope (an article about a book) includes a necessary link to the article Pope Pius XII (an article about a person). The article Pope Pius XII is in the category People who helped Jews during the Holocaust. That's interesting. Isn't this also a contradiction? Pope Pius XII is called Hitler's Pope, and he is known as a person who helped Jews during the Holocaust. Please explain. (Yes, I know I can post this same question on the talk page for Pope Pius XII.)

I see the definition of Anti-Semitic people at [2]. Can someone explain to me why Hitler's Pope is not in this category?

I also see there's a category for Anti-Judaism, currently used for only two articles (Martin Luther and Anti-Judaism) and also as a sub-category of the category Jewish history.

The only specific person with an article on WP who is labeled as anti-Judaism is Martin Luther. Of all the people for whom WP has a single person article, the only person who is anti-Judaism is Martin Luther. There's only been one anti-Judaism person for all of time. Even categories such as Ku Klux Klan members, Nazis and Neo-Nazis don't fall into the anti-Judaism category on WP.

You're kidding, right? Check for yourself. That's what I can learn (Martin Luther is the only anti-Judaism person who ever existed) from the English language Wikipedia.

What can editors of the article on Martin Luther learn from the editors of the article on Pope Pius XII? The latter article is at FA status right now; the article on Martin Luther is at GA status. And, at least at the cut in time that I chose to compose this message, the article on Pope Pius XII does not seem to have experienced many of the issues that the Martin Luther article experiences. Where's the category that puts Pope Pius XII into a category of one - i.e. Anti-Semitic Popes, Anti-Judaism Popes? How do this Pope's WP editors manage to prevent such things from happening? Are the editors who are active in the Martin Luther article also active in the Pope Pius XII article? Does WP need to expand its definition of Anti-Semitic so that it is easier to include people such as Pope Pius XII?

Clarification on any and all of the above would be most welcome. Something, many things, in fact, are just not adding up correctly for me. I'm afraid this is what can happen when "we" are allowed to put people in to categories. If I want to read encyclopedia articles to introduce myself to something, after observing the above, do I really want to turn to WP as my encyclopedia of choice? The jury's still out on that one!

Kind Regards, Keesiewonder 00:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:CFD (Categories for Discussion) to see this kind of issue debated at length. Personally, I favor assigning people to categories based on objective criteria. (So that you can show a common standard was applied, and that any factual issues are fully documented in the article). WP has tons of policy about reasonable categories, it's worth checking out (WP:CAT). EdJohnston 03:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you. I will check those two policy areas out to further my understanding of WP policy. If the current group of editors cannot seem to get beyond toggling between, say, this and that, what is the best way to get an evaluation of whether the material in the article is indeed being handled according to objective criteria? Given that I have never before today "heard," for example, that according to an international encyclopedia, the only anti-Judaism person who ever existed was Martin Luther, I'd have to say WP has a great candidate for a category for deletion, and, may additionally have an article, the article on Martin Luther, that is not being handled objectively. Thoughts? Keesiewonder 03:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

How about a separate annotated bibliography?

I'd like see a discussion regarding the pros and cons of cleaning up the reference section of the current article by way of 1) reducing the current reference section to the core information needed to locate the cited resource and 2) introducing any material removed to achieve (1) to an annotated bibliography. So, if we did this, we'd end up with a sub-page to the ML article with something that looked like

References

See also: Annotated Bibliography

• Ewald Plass, "Monasticism", in What Luther Says: An Anthology (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), 2:964.

...

Keesiewonder 11:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd be opposed. We've had just about every aspect of this article challenged, including that Luther taught justification by faith. Every supporting citation is needed and as precisely stated as possible. Explanatory notes could go, if we wish. We've already moved the majority of the bibliography to their own articles. I do think this is as far as we can go. There really is not short-cutting this. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 12:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Please know I'm not trying to challenge any content in the article here. I'm looking for a way to, say, reduce the current reference number 60, say, from 11 lines to maybe 1-2. At least one of the folks listed with a line of their own in this citation is also cited elsewhere in the article and elsewhere in the reference list (Heiko Oberman). Maybe one scholar has a list in one of their works, and we could just cite that one scholar instead of making our own list? (Our own list of several red-linked folks.) Maybe there's a way in CMS to reformat every current piece of information in ref # 60 such that it takes up fewer lines? Keesiewonder 13:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Keesie, I think the references are just fine as they are. CTSWyneken has spent literally hundreds of hours on this article with a particular view toward the references and citations. He is a professional graduate school librarian, so I think you can leave all this well enough alone. 68.94.92.248 01:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks 68.94.92.248. Do you also have a user name I may recognize that is not an IP address? If not, that's fine. I do know exactly who CTSWyneken is. I am not challenging the number of citations. I am concerned that for some, particularly the one that was # 60 when I first brought this up, they are just taking up too much space - in the case of # 60, it is a lot of blank space because of the way it is formatted - but, 11 lines is 11 lines. In fact, CTSWyneken said in, I believe his 3rd post to this thread, that he does not like the way it was formatted when I composed this note either. He and I have been corresponding regularly on this talk page; for several topics, we are the only ones who ever post to the topic. If he feels I am asking inappropriate questions or making inappropriate edits, or questioning his scholarship, I hope he will tactfully tell me. Keesiewonder 01:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's the problem; if a citation doesn't immediately follow a fact, it is challenged as OR. Most of these are present precisely because the facts they support have been challenged. At one point, my academic integrity was challenged because every use of the Schaaf=Herzog article was not marked as such. That Luther taught the concepts of Law and Gospel, that his marriage was important, that he taught salvation is by grace alone; all of these were challenged. So, as long as a fact is in the article, it needs a citation.

More than that; the <ref name=> has caused all kinds of trouble. The loss of citation information that I pointed out above is a case in point. We simply have to put each reference on its own line.

There are two ways that we can reduce the number of references. One is to go back to the two-column format for notes and the second is to move as much detail as possible to other articles. This process has already brought us down from almost 120 notes to the current number. As time permits, I hope to go back to that process. The eucharistic section, the last days of Luther section an perhaps a few others are good examples. We also could spin off the witchcraft section to another article entirely, since Luther never actually met a witch, nor were his comments, to my knowledge, ever used to persecute witches. A line in the last section that he had harsh words, esp. later in life for the pope and his supporters, Muslims, anabaptists, jews and just about everyone whom he disagreed with will represent it sufficiently. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 15:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I just saw that you were referring to the bullet-pointed one in the Luther and the Jews section. It used to be all one line, but SlimVirgin without comment brought it to its current state. I woul favor returning it to one continuous line. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 15:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, seeing 11 lines for one note is what originally inspired my suggestion to suggest an annotated bibliography. I am not suggesting that we have fewer citations. I am suggesting we have the same number of citations, but display them in a "bare-bones" format with a supporting annotated bibliography on another page ... since I've heard and observed that one aspect that may help toward FA status is tightening up the article's length. Granted, there are a variety of ways to reduce the length of the current article - I was looking for one to start with that may not be controversial ... i.e. something that could be 11 lines could be 2 ... without removing anything but blank space ... Keesiewonder 16:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The 95 Theses in Turkish

Please remind me why we need an external link to the 95 theses in Turkish when we have a link to the 95 theses in English, are the English Wikipedia, and there is a link to the Turkish version of the Martin Luther article in the menu bar on the left? Keesiewonder 14:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

no need here. It could be moved to the 95 Theses article. As a matter of fact, I think all of the external links could move to sub-articles except the ones that are Luther biographies. In fact, I thought we had done that somewhere along the way... --CTSWyneken^(talk) 15:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)