Talk:Martin Luther

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Skip to Table of Contents Skip to Table of Contents
Peer review Martin Luther has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Philrelig article has been rated GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Wikipedia CD Selection Martin Luther is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.
Portal:Germany
 Germany Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Comments:
Germany To-do:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
Core This article is listed on this Project's core biographies page.
Good articles Martin Luther has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

Contents

[edit] Archives

[edit] 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.[1] 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.[2]

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)


[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/r/Talk%7EMartin_Luther_78ef.html"