User talk:Thetruthbelow/ Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Welcome! 2 Act of State Doctrine 3 Fazendas 4 My RfA 5 Martin Luther and the Jews 6 Your note 7 Re: On the Jews and Their Lies (Martin Luther) 8 Welcome to the Kindness Campaign! 9 Citation Tutorial 10 Your note 11 Other Articles 12 Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot 13 Opinion at requested at Talk:Martin Luther 14 Thanks! But it's too early 15 Careful

Welcome!

Hello, Thetruthbelow/ Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! I am CTSWyneken. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk or ask me on my talk page.
• Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
• Provide an Edit summary
• Take a look at Consensus of standards. It is always wise to read the talk page of an existing article before making major changes on it. Even then, I typically ask if anyone minds that I make a change. Very often they do! ;-)
• Create a User page

Again, welcome! And if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask. --CTSWyneken 00:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Act of State Doctrine

Hey, thanks for writing the Act of State Doctrine article. I kept meaning to write it, but just never got around to it. Looks good. --CapitalR 11:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Fazendas

can you edit the sentence "Fazenda is a portuguese word for 'farm', but is used in the English langiage for the coffee estates that spread within the interior of Brazil between 1840 and 186"? I don't know what year "186" refers to. --the Dannycas 15:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that reffered to the year 1896, I just edited it. Thetruthbelow 16:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks! Aside from two Wikipedians who have been in conflict with me on the Luther and Jews issue, one of whom is respected (SlimVirgin) and another who is not at all liked (Doright), the argument was that my experience was too narrow. People like admins who edit a wide variety of topics, who participate a bunch in the discussions of the community (voting on RfAs, RfCs, commenting on guidelines and suggestions in the wikipedia namespace (all the non-encyclopedia pages, more or less)

I'm trying to some of this, when time permits. I don't see why folk think it necessary, but I've enjoyed it and its good to get away from the two controversial pages I spend most of my time with: the Martin Luther pages, especially the Martin Luther and the Jews and the On the Jews and Their Lies (Martin Luther) articles. If you have any suggestions, let me know. I do not promise anything, but I might just be able to give something a stab.

If you want to wade into it, a new voice would be welcome, but I suggest you read a bit on the subject, and not just on the talk pages, but in actual works by scholars who've written about Luther, the Reformation, Judaism in 16th Century Germany, the history of anti-semitism and so on. Shalom. Bob--CTSWyneken 20:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! The current issue at Martin Luther is how much to include in the introduction. I'm maintaining that, since we have a full paragraph that outlines the issues, a full article on Martin Luther and the Jews and one On the Jews and their Lies, we should keep the reference to the issue to a phrase or a sentence in the intro. Others want to put several sentences to a paragraph there. One fellow, who doesn't talk on the talk pages, keeps moving it entirely to the section itself. Your opinion here would be welcome. --CTSWyneken 23:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Martin Luther and the Jews

Thanks for coming on board! I'll read it carefully in the morning. Just two observations at the moment:

It would be helpful to document sources in your section. This should not be difficult, since a number of folk make the same observations. This is so hotly contested a topic, however, and citations will help defeat that.

There are a significant number of scholars that contest the direct influence of Luther's words on Hitler. If you'd like, I could help you obtain a copy of a study of the influence on Luther's words on anti-semitism between the 16th and the 20th centuries that make a compelling case that it was not influencial. I think we need to document both views in our articles. Bob --CTSWyneken 00:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah -- you really need to put some citations especially for this paragraph:

One of the reasons that Luther initially preached tolerance towards the Jewish people was that he was convinced that the reason they had never converted to Christianity was that they were discriminated against, or had never heard the Gospel of Christ. Luther was zealous toward the Gospel, and he felt that he had to "protect" the people of his homeland from the Jews who he believed would be harmful influences since they did not recognize Jesus as their Saviour. When Luther lived, parents were able to arrange marriages for their children, and felth that the choice was made in respect to matters of faith. Likewise, Luther felt a duty to direct the German people to cling to the Jesus the Jews did not accept. It should be noted that church law was superior to civil law in Luther's day and that law said the penalty of blasphemy was death. When Luther called for the deaths of certain Jews, it can be said that he was asking that the laws that were applied to all other Germans also be applied to the Jews.

Yeah, I just fixed that. Thanks for the feedback. Thetruthbelow 03:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The need for sources for this should be obvious. Anytime we see "it can be said" in Wikipedia, we must immediately say "ok, then some reliable verifiable source must have said it, otherwise we're doing original research". (Also, what's the marriage sentence about?) Oh, by the way, welcome to Wikipedia -- please don't take my advice as adverse criticism; this is a rather picky and somewhat stuffy place in some ways. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I'll read it all carefully later, but on first glance, I think you write well. It's just -- well -- you have thousands of editors around here marking up your work. It's a good bet that if you're working on controversial articles, you'll get asked to do references.

By the way: thanks for the barnstar! Bob --CTSWyneken 13:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the paragraphs and they are a good start. I think we need to add someone to the section that has the Michael quote in it to show that there are two sides to the issue. The Siemon-Netto quote at the beginning of the Martin Luther and the Jews article. The other is to cite everything. --CTSWyneken 23:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The discussion rolls on at the Martin Luther page. --CTSWyneken 00:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course! I emailed you, but it appears to have gone lost in cyberspace. Drop me an email. I'll scan, PDF and pack it off to you in the morning. --CTSWyneken 01:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. We'll see if people want to play ball. Send me an email via the link on my user page and I'll get the article to you. --CTSWyneken 01:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Got it! --CTSWyneken 01:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Patience, my new friend! The article is at work. I'll get it in the email in the morning. 8-) Bob --CTSWyneken 01:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It's an emotional issue. For some, its tied up with their relatives suffering at the hands of the Nazis. For myself and others, this is the very dark side of our spiritual father. For one side, its hard to conceive of anything nice being said of Luther because of his hatred of the Jewish people. For us, it's hard to hear just criticism develop into the same invictive he used. The key is to respect each other, try to understand the other's emotions and then move on to telling this story with respect for all scholarly viewpoints on the matter. That is why citing your sources in this matter is critical.

I'll scan the article for you first thing. As you research this, if you have trouble finding something, let me know. I can send articles upon request. Books you'll have to borrow via interlibrary loan. I'm looking forward to working with you on these pages. Shalom, --CTSWyneken 10:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Glad I could be of service. I'll verify your notes when I and my copy of the article are in the same place. I really wish that folk would be kinder to you. After all, you're new. --CTSWyneken 00:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Your note

Hi TTB, thank you for your kind note, which is very much appreciated. Your offer of friendship is accepted and I'm happy to make a similar offer to you. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: On the Jews and Their Lies (Martin Luther)

Well, you did jump into an article that's a hotbed. Don't take it as personal criticism -- you're doing good work, and we want to make it better. (A world full of editors; that must be an utter horror to many writers.) Would you prefer if we just went in and reworded things without saying why? I tend to work the other way; if people make well-intentioned edits that have problems, I prefer to bring up the problems on the talk page rather than just diving in and editing, since I came to the conclusion a long time ago that I'm not right all the time. (A painful conclusion, I might add.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know what I'm doing today. A tech support guy at Apple thought I was being rather snarky and handed me off to a colleague; and now I've upset you, in both cases without having any intention of doing anything of the sort. I really don't mean to be riding you -- I think this is one of the disadvantages of typed rather than spoken communication; without cues such as expression and tone of voice, it's way too easy to give a wrong impression. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No offense taken, or even anything close to it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I've put the text back in the article. Let's work with Truth to refine his work. After all, he's new and working hard. There is much worse writing in Wikipedia. I've posted citing suggestions for him on the talk page of On the Jews and Their Lies (Martin Luther). Could you pick one content problem and ask him to fix it? --CTSWyneken 10:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the Kindness Campaign!

Just my way of saying thanks to newcomers to the Kindness Campaign... a delicious home-baked chocolate chip cookie! Yum. :D  ♥ Kylu  (talk • contribs • email • logs • count)

Thanks for joining! :D ~Kylu (u|t) 08:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Citation Tutorial

OK, Grasshopper (oops! Wrong generation!) OK, Young Skywalker... 8-) BTW, have you ever noticed that Yoda is very close to the Hebrew for "I know?" ;-)

Take a look at the Martin Luther and the Jews page.

Note 1 is a citation from a book. Paul Johnson is the author, A History of the Jews, is the title, New York is the place, Harper Collins is the publisher, 1987 is the date. 242 is the publisher. The "p." is old-fashioned for page number. Most modern styles allow you to omit it.

If you open a book and summarize the information there, or draw a quote from it, you use this form to let everyone know where it comes from. Most citations from books are this simple, although there are exceptions. (where different authors write each chapter, for example).

Now look at note two. This is for an article in a magazine. Journals follow this pattern as well. Uwe Siemon-Netto is the author here. The title in quotes is the title of the article. Lutheran Witness, in italics. 123 is the volume number. When libraries bind periodicals, they bind everything in the same volume number together in the same book. That's why it's called a volume. In the parenthesis is the year of publication. You can list it this way, or add the month or quarter of the issue. The number is the place in the sequence the library will put the issue. This can be omitted, but normally its a good idea to provide as much info as possible.

Does this help? --CTSWyneken 23:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well you have done, young Skywalker, but perfect, you are not.

You'll need to expand the Wallmann entries. Add the journal, Lutheran Quarterly, the volume, 1, I believe, then the year in parentheses, followed by the issue number. Without the article in front of me, I'd say the rest should look like: Lutheran Quarterly 1 (yyyy) no. X:xx-xx.

Now, lesson two. The second time you cite a work, all you need is the writer's name and page. So, Wallmann, p. 34 or some such. --CTSWyneken 00:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Pretty good! You have all the info there, just out of order. The second and third references are perfect.

Here's the way the first should look:

Johannes Wallmann, "The Reception of Luther's Writings on the Jews from the Reformation to the End of the 19th Century". Lutheran Quarterly 1 (Spring 1987)No. 1:72.

The tags are lesson three. They are HTML and mark titles so that search engines can index them properly. They also italicize the title, which is a part of some style manuals. --CTSWyneken 01:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's let it sit overnight. I'll look at the final results in the morning. I have the article, so I can compare what she's done with it to what you're reading. By the time you get home tomorrow, I should have some comments one way or another. Do you have something less controversial to work on? Maybe the pitching coach for the Houston Astros? 8-) --CTSWyneken 01:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

As long as you're satisfied, I'll let it go. I'm most concerned with helping you to be a better editor. Next, that the finished product be well written and accurate to the sources. As long as you want to learn and work at it hard, I'm happy to have something start in unfinished form and improve.

For future reference, it is normally better on articles like these to put your text in the talk page first and worked on there. It is even possible to open a page off the talk page (subpages) to put your text for development. Not all editors follow that rule, even when they advocate it for others. But it is a good way to keep confrontations to a minimum. If you want to learn the subpage trick, let me know. --CTSWyneken 10:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Your note

Thanks for your note, TB. Try to understand that people have limited time to deal with these articles (and with everything else). We're all volunteers, so to have to spend time copy editing other people's writing can be frustrating, and particularly to have to do it more than once because they revert the changes. Questions aren't filled with doubt, because doubt is a mental state and a question is not something that has a mental world. That's why I called it nonsense. Similarly, to say that something happens "because of historical circumstances" or whatever the wording was, is also odd writing, because why else do things happen (unless you were making some sort of Marxian point, which I doubt)? What was worse about the latter is that you attributed it to the author, whereas he almost certainly didn't say that. I think it would be better if you were to open up a user subpage in future if you want to change articles radically; you can put up your draft version there, and then invite interested editors to have a look. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Could we discuss this on the article talk page, please? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Other Articles

That sounds like fun. I'll have to review your interests. In the meantime, remember you know a librarian. If you need help getting your hands on something, I may be able to help. If you want to keep working on citation formats, just let me know when you put one in and I'll check it for you. Shalom, Bob--CTSWyneken 10:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Corbie St. Petersburg Soviet Employment contract Exsurge Domine Drogo of Champagne Military of Brazil Coffee maker Third Servile War Pippinid Decet Romanum Pontificem World Touring Car Championship Karl Radek Hugo Thomas Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Dogmatic definition Watch tuning Employment Standards Administration King's University College Iskra

Cleanup Religion and slavery Hwarang Song Hye-rim Merge Voluntary employment Italian Empire Party Congress Add Sources Equal pay for women Universal opportunity Maurice Spector Wikify Aaron Brown Egmont (play) Roksan Audio Expand Antiquities of the Jews Slim Fast Oven

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 01:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestionsThetruthbelow^(talk) 21:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Opinion at requested at Talk:Martin Luther

There is a catagory dispute I'd appreciate your input on. --CTSWyneken 15:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The issue of whether to put Luther in both catagories or just one. --CTSWyneken 01:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

No apologies needed. I'd understand if you never came back. But it is good to have as many voices of reason as possible when things get heated. --CTSWyneken 01:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly the point we've been trying to make. It might be best to ask them directly. --CTSWyneken 01:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll just agree with her. It's useful to remind each other that this one point is not the whole story. --CTSWyneken 01:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thats fine with me.Thetruthbelow^(talk) 02:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! But it's too early

I appreciate the offer, but we have to wait a few more months at least. Ask again in September.

Bob--CTSWyneken 01:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Careful

Calling people "hypocrites" probably could be considered, by some, as a personal attack, and I know you don't want to do that. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)