| Revision as of 00:43, 12 January 2007 editJustas Jonas (talk | contribs)203 edits →What is the answer?← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 12:59, 31 December 2024 edit undoRemsense (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Template editors62,140 edits Undid revision 1266407170 by 2A02:3037:401:54C5:D17D:91FF:9DC9:9C14 (talk) unclearTags: Undo Mobile edit Mobile app edit iOS app edit App undo |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{British English|date=August 2010}} |
|
{{skiptotoctalk}} |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
{{off topic warning}} |
|
|
|
|action1=FAC |
|
{{oldpeerreview}} |
|
|
|
|action1date=18:11, 12 July 2006 |
|
{{V0.5|class=GA|category=Philrelig}} |
|
|
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Martin Luther/archive1 |
|
{{facfailed}} |
|
|
|
|action1result=not promoted |
|
{{WPCD}} |
|
|
|
|action1oldid=63405206 |
|
{{ChristianityWikiProject|class=GA}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Germany|class=GA|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WPBiography|class=GA|priority=Top|core=yes}} |
|
|
{{GA}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action2=GAN |
|
==]== |
|
|
|
|action2date=00:14, 18 August 2006 |
|
|
|action2result=listed |
|
|
|action2oldid=70310974 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action3=PR |
|
|
|action3date=11:31, 31 October 2006 |
|
|
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Martin Luther/archive1 |
|
|
|action3result=reviewed |
|
|
|action3oldid=84816172 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action4=GAR |
|
|
|action4date=12 May 2007 |
|
|
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Good article review/Archive 18#Martin Luther |
|
|
|action4result=delisted |
|
|
|action4oldid=130407286 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action5=GAN |
|
|
|action5date=17:32, 4 August 2007 |
|
|
|action5result=not listed |
|
|
|action5oldid=148714301 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action6=GAN |
|
== Pronunciation == |
|
|
|
|action6date=15:09, 24 May 2011 |
|
|
|action6link=Talk:Martin Luther/GA1 |
|
|
|action6result=listed |
|
|
|action6oldid=430632654 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action7=GAR |
|
I am convinced that the original German pronunciation of his name is {{IPA|}} as the English pronunciation has a sound, lacking in German. Can anyone give me advice on it aso I can assuredly add it on the page? ] 15:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action7date=11:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|action7link=Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Martin Luther/1 |
|
|
|action7result=delisted |
|
|
|action7oldid=478413566 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|currentstatus=DGA |
|
:: I think we need to go, not with the original pronunciation, but how his name is pronounced in English. It will just confuse people to do otherwise. (This is the reason we don't play with the name of Jesus (which was nothing of the kind; likely pronounced Yea -- sus (most Palestinians at the time of Jesus were multilingual and would have spoken Greek in public areas) or Ye-shoo-ah (in private and all Jewish areas) Luther's case is complex, since the German language was in flux at the time. At home, it was probably "Loo-der" But his daily discourse would range from High German (Loo-ter) to every day Saxon (Loo-der) to Latin in churchly circles, influenced by Humanism's high regard for Greek. (for a while, he wrote under the Greek pen name, elutheros, one set free. There it was definitely "th" in sound. Since this is the way he and his contemporaries came to spell it, I'm betting the English/Greek way is the most common way he and his contemporaries pronounced it. --<b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="navy">]</font></b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">Wyneken</font><sup><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">]</font></sup> 17:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|topic=Philosophy and religion |
|
:::When speaking of his father Hans Luther (Luder) this would be a matter of importance. I agree with CTS here. You might note that ] is a prime example of a person whose German name has lost some significance: his original name was Philipp Schwarzerd ("black earth"), which he translated into Greek (Melanchthon). --] 20:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd1date=2004-05-25|otd1oldid=6718031 |
|
|
|otd2date=2005-05-25|otd2oldid=16335224 |
|
|
|otd3date=2006-05-25|otd3oldid=55029205 |
|
|
|otd4date=2007-05-25|otd4oldid=133454668 |
|
|
|otd5date=2008-05-25|otd5oldid=214758884 |
|
|
|otd6date=2008-10-31|otd6oldid=248747244 |
|
|
|otd7date=2009-05-25|otd7oldid=292163546 |
|
|
|otd8date=2009-10-31|otd8oldid=323087928 |
|
|
|otd9date=2010-10-31|otd9oldid=393910840 |
|
|
|otd10date=2011-10-31|otd10oldid=458083822 |
|
|
|otd11date=2012-10-31|otd11oldid=520799982 |
|
|
|otd12date=2014-10-31|otd12oldid=631724169 |
|
|
|otd13date=2018-10-31|otd13oldid=866638855 |
|
|
|otd14date=2019-10-31|otd14oldid=923866129 |
|
|
|otd15date=2021-10-31|otd15oldid=1052521566 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|listas=Luther, Martin|living=no|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=Top|theology-work-group=yes|theology-importance=Top|history=yes|history-importance=top|lutheranism=yes|lutheranism-importance=Top|bible=yes|bible-importance=High|catholicism=yes|catholicism-importance=High||anglicanism=yes|anglicanism-importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Germany|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|core=yes|a&e-work-group=yes|a&e-priority=Top|s&a-work-group=yes|s&a-priority=}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=high|philosopher=yes|social=yes|religion=yes|modern=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Jewish history|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject European history|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top|Interfaith=yes|InterfaithImp=}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Former countries|Prussia=Yes|HRE-taskforce=yes|Prussia-importance=|HRE-taskforce-importance=}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Translation studies|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages}} |
|
|
}}{{section size}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{archives|1=]}} |
|
== Discussion of the Length of the Luther and Antisemitism Section == |
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|
|counter = 17 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Martin Luther/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{archive box |bot=MiszaBot I |age=3 |units=months |search=yes |auto=yes | index=/Archive index}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Broken anchors|links= |
|
|
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (History within Protestantism) ]. <!-- {"title":"History within Protestantism","appear":{"revid":300990046,"parentid":299517194,"timestamp":"2009-07-08T13:48:45Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":1203682825,"parentid":1203680847,"timestamp":"2024-02-05T10:41:20Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} --> |
|
|
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (New Testament teaching) ]. <!-- {"title":"New Testament teaching","appear":{"revid":664859521,"parentid":664857396,"timestamp":"2015-05-31T13:45:56Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":1018913353,"parentid":1018065224,"timestamp":"2021-04-20T15:34:33Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} --> |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi Protected Edit Request Sep. 11 2023 == |
|
Several people here have indicated why they believe the sub-article on Luther and the Jews is/was too long. They change it. Along come some other Misplaced Pages editors and without any discusssion or participation in this discussion they lengthen it back again. I'm still waiting for anyone of these defenders of the length of the sub-article to offer a coherent and detailed explanation of why they think this too-long subsection should not be reduced and why <b>two other lengthy</b> articles that are <b>clearly referenced</b> in the text are not more than adequate for giving this issue plenty of coverage? It would appear there is a POV motivating this defense of what clearly is an indefensibly too long sub-article. The sub-article needs to be kept short and brief, not allowed to become an article within an article. Reasons for keeping it as long as it was need to be offered here. Others have rightly noted it is too long. My feeling is that we keep it short and continue to change it back to something shorter when others want to make it too long. ] 23:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
---- |
|
|
'''''Just to be clear, this thread was started by ]. The voting thing that follows was started by ]. Thanks!''''' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{SPER |answered=yes}} |
|
May we try getting a feel for who is weighing in here in a list format? I'll be bold and organize the format. I really don't know for sure who is where because I have not been watching this talk page as long as most of you. |
|
|
|
the beginning of the article says "despite the fact that Luther did not advocate the murdering of Jews", however, later in the article, it goes on to say "In Robert Michael's view, Luther's words 'We are at fault in not slaying them' amounted to a sanction for murder. 'God's anger with them is so intense,' Luther concluded, 'that gentle mercy will only tend to make them worse, while sharp mercy will reform them but little. Therefore, in any case, away with them!'." is this not advocating for murder in at least some sense? in any case, the addition of "did not *directly* advocate the murdering of Jews" would clear this up. |
|
|
] (]) 21:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{Tlx|Edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> This doesn't feel like the type of non-controversial change that should be made via an edit request without discussion first. ] (]) 18:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
'''Support Long Version of Luther and the Jews/Anti-Semitism/Anti-Judaism in the Martin Luther article''' |
|
|
# --]<sup><small>( ] | ])</small></sup> 02:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
# Even if shortening it were a good idea (and I don't think it is), simply cutting out the first/last two paragraphs, and inaccurately re-writing and POVing the rest, is not a reasonable solution. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
#:You are welcome, of course, to do a condensation of the section yourself. As far as I can tell, no one in the current discussion is wedded to a particular version. My concern is that it meet the guidelines in ].--<b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="navy">]</font></b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">Wyneken</font><sup><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">]</font></sup> 12:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
# The deleted material was factual, and was contributed by several editors over a long period of time. It should not have been deleted after an anonymous editor called for it to be deleted. ] 07:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
# As I noted earlier, ML is one the most influential figures in history. It is important to reflect his legacy adequately in its entirety. I really don't see something that's out of place there. If that section does look too long, I would suggest to break it into subsections. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 10:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
#:As far as I know, no other article about a historical figure on wikipedia has an article length sub-section on a controversial issue. If you know of one, please provide a link. Why should we ignore ]? To my knowledge, no encyclopedia article on Luther contains more than a sentence or two on the issue and no biography of Luther more than a few pages. I see no objective reason why we should not follow FA standards and move most of the material to ]. --<b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="navy">]</font></b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">Wyneken</font><sup><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">]</font></sup> 12:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
#:: I don't see a violation of the ] and IMHO the topic's importance justifies its length. It is sad that many other bios were not NPOV. We saw results of that glaring omission consistently on this talk page. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 09:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
# I thought this issue was settled a long time ago, when a consensus emerged concerning the length of this section. Now the same old battle is being refought. This kind of continual dredging up of old and resolved issues is disruptive.--] 16:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
# I'm afraid any attempts to rewrite this section will result only in more bad blood and edit warring. ] ] 19:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
#'''weak support'''. For the sake of peace and a balanced presentation of this topic, it may be necessary to have the section remain as it is. Proper editing of an encyclopedia article might suggest some trimming, however.--] 00:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:AGREE — Luther's words unambiguously advocated murdering Jews. |
|
'''Support Short Version of Luther and the Jews/Anti-Semitism/Anti-Judaism in the Martin Luther article'''<br> |
|
|
|
:] (]) 21:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::AGREE |
|
|
::Luther unambiguously advocating the killing of Jews. This is not a matter of dispute within scholarship, and Luther's very works that are sourced within this article confirm this. |
|
|
::This article demonstrates with sources already that Lutheran unambiguously advocating the killing of Jews. This is not a matter of dispute within scholarship, and Luther's very works that are sourced within this article confirm this. ] (]) 11:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:: This is an unambiguous call for murdering Jews. It is tendentious nonsense - or illiteracy - to say otherwise. The beginning of the article is utter nonsense in disputing this. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
#] 01:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
'''added "directly"''' as per the above consensus. ''self-disclosure: I'm a Lutheran pastor'' ] <sup>]</sup> 15:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
#Per ] and ].--<b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="navy">]</font></b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">Wyneken</font><sup><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">]</font></sup> 02:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
#-- It needs to be condensed. It is presently too long, unbalances the page and the text is redundant with what is said in the sub-article. ] 07:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
# -- Definitely needs to be shortened. There are two other long articles on this subject on Misplaced Pages. This overly-long sub-article on the Martin Luther article is out of place. A careful review of the history of the length and wording of the sub-article demonstrates conclusively that those advocating making it as long as possible have a very strong bias on this issue and are pushing a POV that one can easily see in all of their Wiki article work by checking their user contribution pages. ] 18:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::As far as I am concerned, we have not defined 'long' yet. Nothing's conclusive to me, yet, on this issue. And, I am pretty certain at least one of the editors voting for 'a long' version is not even Jewish in practice, but in part by heritage. (That's a hard thing to word; please correct me if I got it wrong.) Please carefully read their user pages if you think I am mis-speaking here. Thank you, everyone, who has voted so far. I am finding it useful and informative. ] 18:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2024 == |
|
:::"Long" as compared to every other sub-article in the Luther article. That's pretty obvious. The people "for" keeping it longer than any other sub-article in the Luther article, in spite of there being <b><i>two other lengthy articles on the same subject</b></i> are not providing any good reason for keeping it as long as it is. It is simply not true that there was "consensus" for keeping it like this. One need only read the long back and forth on this to show that there never was consensus for the subarticle remaining as long as it. Rather, what happened is What has the same four or so people, one of whom was administratively "dinged" in arbitration for using multiple identities on Misplaced Pages, and in other cases at least two Wiki admins who seem to focus a lot of their time on these and related issues, absolutely refuse to shorten the article and have demanded and intimidated non-adminstrative Wiki users into keeping it this long. I've spent a lot of time reading the whole history of this sub-article and it has been enlightening, to say the least. It is a good insight into how things are done on Misplaced Pages, and a pretty sad indictment of the problems that plague Wikpedia in general when it comes to the so-called "scholarship" of Wikpedia. All this being said, there is still yet not been provided any clear, coherent reason for keeping this sub-article as long as it is, when there are already two long articls on the same issue already on Misplaced Pages, both articles are clearly linked in the sub-article itself. This is simply a certain point of view and bias being pushed. That is no good reason for it to be the longest sub-article in the Luther article. If the sub-article is in in fact going to be this long, and if so, well, ok, even though I think it is absurd, but...let's agree to keep it as long as it is. Then clearly the other sub-articles in the Luther article should all be made longer as well. That would be the only reasonable compromise if the "Luther and Antisemitism" sub-article is going to stay as long as it is. I'll be happy to start working on expanding the other sub-articles. That would be interesting. ] 00:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Martin Luther|answered=yes}} |
|
::::*Justas Jonas, in all due respect, it appears to me you have been a member since December 30, 2006, and have made 15 WP edits on 3 different pages. Your (optional) user page is red. But it sounds like you've been around for a while. Please explain. Also, since I haven't been around WP forever, but just since October 18, 2006, I don't get anything, really, out of whatever you're trying to say about approximately 3 admins here. If you'd like to enlighten me on my talk page or via email, I'd appreciate it. I have concerns about one admin who frequents the Martin Luther article/talk, and that admin has not voted in the little thing above. Finally, can you explain how you think the 5 above voting for 'long' who have non-red user pages are going to become comfortable with a user with less than 10 days worth of posts nearly demanding that the article go their way? Geeesh. I know they won't do that for me (I wouldn't expect them to), even though I appear to have a lot more and varied experience on WP than you ... |
|
|
|
Changes to be made in the style of the source code: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change "==University of Wittenberg==" into "===University of Wittenberg===" |
|
:::::::::::::::You can read the history of any given page's edits and that's what I've done. Makes for some instructive and informative reading. You can also check the user contributions of editors by clicking on that link and you can see where they post and what they do. That too has made for informative and instructive reading. You can do the same thing if you care to. Misplaced Pages claims to be a great place for objective research that is improved by the "group process" ... well, this situation is sure proving that one to be totally wrong. You can also go to Google and search on "problems with Misplaced Pages" and read a lot of informative articles on the issues. If you want to learn more about this history of this discussion and this article issue, then you can read it like I have. It's all there to see. Hope that helps. ] 03:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add "==Ministry and Later Years==" to the line before the one referenced in the previous suggestion. Reformat if needed. ] (]) 19:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
:*Yes, ], I've quickly become rather proficient reading histories of page edits and contributions from editors who I would like to know more about. I've even emailed editors when that option has been available, and, so far, there has been a 100% appropriate return reply. I've probably skimmed material from all of the admins you're hoping I learn about. Thankfully, they all have long histories for me to peruse. One of my biases is I have trouble accepting guidance from editors (like yourself?) with a virtually empty list of contributions and empty talk pages and empty user pages. Especially when discussing a controversial topic or aspect of something. Maybe someday my experiences will equal what you are telling me now. I am going to do everything I can to have the same username in the future. It may help others have some confidence in me and perspective for where I'm coming from. ] 12:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Clarification: |
|
::::Justas Jonas, you coincidentally have the same disruptive style, are on the same soapbox and make the same false allegations about other editors as that of a previously banned editor who used to frequent this page and cause all sorts of havoc. Any connection? --]<sup><small>( ] | ])</small></sup> 03:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:Change heading "University of Wittenberg" to a subheading and in its place, put "Ministry and Later Years" ] (]) 19:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Already done'''<!-- Template:ESp --> Unless I am mistaken, this has been done. ] (]) 00:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== "some historians contend" to "historians contend" == |
|
::::::::::::MPerel, huh? ] 12:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most historians contend that Luther's work contributed to the antisemitism rampant in early 20th Century Germany and the rise of the Nazi Party. "Some historians contend" implies this is a minority opinion. The only thing that they seem to disagree on is whether his antisemitic works were taken seriously in the intervening years. This sentence deserves some clarification. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::*As it appears to me, 10 people have been willing to vote on 'this' right now, all without a clear definition of what 'long' or 'short' means. (Sounds like good faith to me, especially since I'm kind of new yet the "old" timers are participating without biting.) I'd like to allow some more time for some more people to vote (say 5 days total or maybe even 8 days total). '''But, my primary goal in donating my efforts to the Martin Luther article and its talk page is to try to help raise it to FA status. I am assuming good faith in everyone here in that marching toward FA status is supported by everyone who is voting in the long vs. short thing.''' So, if it ends up being '6 longs to 4 shorts,' then I'm going to try to work with the 'longs' to understand how long is long (in terms of bytes) and then take a look at the section to see if I have any constructive feedback on it that does not undermine what the, say, 7 (the 6 plus me) agreed to. We've got to figure out a way to move on. Moving on may just mean going with the longs if they're in the majority. I see the two sub articles and don't really understand why we need a 'long' when we have them; but, in a collaborative way, we've got to try to find a way to move beyond edit/revert wars on the same section. I trust that when and if we nominate the article for a peer review or some other objective review process, if there are concerns from the reviewers beyond us about the length of the section in question, they too will see the sub-articles and 'tell' us to move more material there, or something. I look forward to your input on the other sections (maybe you could start drafting your ideas on sub-user pages of your own now, while you're waiting for this vote thing to end). And, I'm glad to hear that if the decision is 'long,' that you'll still be on board. That'd make 8 ... if you're following me. :-) ] 01:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== "Totalism" is influenced? == |
|
:::::::::::::That's fine, keep it long. I'll start working on expanding the rest of the sub-articles, since "long" is now ok on the Luther page. Keesie, I would appreciate it if you would respond to the substance of my post rather than criticizing me, ok? Thanks. Unless I'm wrong, I don't see any Misplaced Pages policy that requires me not to make edits on the page unless and until they are approved by others. ] 12:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I see that Luther's of influence in Nazi mentioned in the page. But it's there something in all totalitarian Luther's attitudes. Including in communists and Americans who create some perfect idealism book making every person good. ] (]) 04:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
:*Justas Jonas, All I can recommend is patience. I have responded to some of your posts and will respond to the unanswered parts later. (If you read my posts on this page, you'll see that I have helped continue threads you have started, 'voted' along side of you for the 'short' version, expressed confusion about why we 'need' a 'long,' etc. Can you tell me another user who is working with you to the level I am? Have you answered all the questions I've raised?) To answer/discuss everything immediately is probably not going to allow a group of editors to reach consensus on anything. We're in the company of some editors who have been here for a very long time; like it or not, we're going to need to find a way to work with them if we intend to stay here ourselves. Editing the Martin Luther article in any way you see fit is fine; go ahead. Your edits raise a red flag, if only because your signature is in red and your contribution history is so short and so focused. I believe my concern is called constructive criticism, not personal attack. You, of course, may interpret it as you wish. Kind Regards, ] 13:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:You will need ] to add that. --] (]) 20:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
'''Procedural Comment/Question''' - I wish I'd said 'support '''A''' long' and 'support '''A''' short' version above since at least I had no particular version in mind, nor how long even a 'short' version would be. We can define what 'long' and 'short mean later. |
|
|
|
|
|
:: That is the way I understand this poll. --<b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="navy">]</font></b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">Wyneken</font><sup><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">]</font></sup> 12:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Suggestion''' - votes in the above unofficial poll from IP addresses, editors who per username have never made an edit on the ML article or talk, and editors with creation dates on or after ], ] may (will) not carry much influence. |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Question''' - Can someone please just put the article and its talk page on semi-protected status indefinitely? |
|
|
] 10:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] and the Luther article == |
|
|
|
|
|
As I've said above, my major concern with the article is its length. Currently, with the large Luther and the Jews section, the article is at 78 kb. The section itself is 12.8 kb currently. By comparison, the lead section is 4.5 kb, Early Life, 1.98 kb, Monastic Life, 1.8 KB, 95 Theses, 1.33 KB, Papal response, 3.16 kb, Widening Breach, 3.81 KB, Worms 5.38 KB, Luther exile, 4.42 KB, return from exile, 4.42 KB, Luther Bible 955 bytes, Peasants War 1.69 KB, Liturgy 5.11 KB (This one also needs summary style attention), Eucharist 4.09 KB (also needs summary style attention) Augsburg Confession 1013 bytes, Family life, 2.56 Bytes, Luther and Witches, 1.98 kb and final years, 6.33 KB. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Abstract of the Summary style guideline says: |
|
|
<blockquote>"When articles grow too long, longer sections should be spun off into their own articles and a several paragraph summary should be left in its place. Such sections are linked to the detailed article with a {{main|<name of detailed article>}} or comparable template under the section title. To help preserve links to the edit history of the text being moved, it is essential that the edit summary for the creation of the new article that you write links back to the original article."</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
] says: |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose. Thus the 32 KB recommendation is considered to have stylistic value in many cases; if an article is significantly longer than that, then it probably should be summarized with detail moved to other articles (see Misplaced Pages:Summary style). For most long pages, division into sections is natural anyway; even if there is no "natural" way to split a long list or table, many editors believe that it should be done anyway, to allow section editing. |
|
|
|
|
|
Articles longer than 12 to 15 printed pages (more than 30 to 35 KB of readable text) take longer to read than the upper limit of the average adult's attention span — 20 minutes.</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
I'll continue this analysis later. Others, of course, are welcome to add. --<b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="navy">]</font></b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">Wyneken</font><sup><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">]</font></sup> 11:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Here is more from the guidelines... "'''It is generally considered to be a bad idea to divide an article too hastily'''. Often the best way to divide an article is to let it grow and then look for sections that could logically be summarized and spun off so the article once again efficiently covers its topic. '''Interwiki links, along with external links, further reading, references, see also and similar sections should not be counted toward an article's total size since the point is to limit readable prose in the main body of an article'''.". If we do not count the "external links", "further reading", and "references" then isn't the article size about right? ] 14:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Thank you for this helpful addition. The article was first written in 2001 and had steadily expanded until last year, when we began a concerted effort to follow the ] guidelines. The long version of this text is months old. The subarticle itself was spun off a year or so ago to do just what the guidelines suggest. I think it is time to follow their counsel. The above section sizes exclude all the side information, images and the external links. Together they exceed 62 kb. So, no, it is long by both the stricter and the looser standard, even allowing that a few kb of footnotes are still included. --<b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="navy">]</font></b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">Wyneken</font><sup><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">]</font></sup> 16:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*Thanks for the thread - I may not be able to weigh in until the weekend due to hell at work. ] 09:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== Articles on Luther in Other Encyclopedias === |
|
|
|
|
|
==== MSN Encarta ==== |
|
|
<cite>MSN Encarta</cite>. s.v. "" by ]. Article length: 12 kb. Space devoted to Luther and the Jews issue: 461 Bytes.--<b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="navy">]</font></b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">Wyneken</font><sup><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">]</font></sup> 20:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==== Encyclopedia Britannica Online ==== |
|
|
<cite>Encyclopedia Britannica Online</cite>. s.v. "." by ]. Article lengh: 61 kb. Space devoted to the Luther and the Jews issue: 3 words. --<b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="navy">]</font></b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">Wyneken</font><sup><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">]</font></sup> 20:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Too many words to describe it all== |
|
|
I think a fundamental problem with this whole dispute is that the dispute between versions of the anti-semitism section, which is somewhat based on length, is more a dispute over the content in the versions. But I don't think much attention seems to of been given of writing the section in a way that uses as few words as possible without losing any of the content. For instance, in the first paragraph, you have a long line of direct quotes when a summary of what Luther said would do, especially because its, you know, supposed to be in summary style, and you'd think most of the content of the treatise would be in the actual article concerning the treatise. For example, instead of the long list of quotes that are there now, it could read: |
|
|
|
|
|
:"In his 60,000-word treatise, On the Jews and Their Lies, published in 1543 as Von den Juden und ihren Lügen, Luther advocated that many harsh measures be taken against the Jewish people. He advised that all Jewish schools and ] be burned down and/or buried, in addition to advising the destruction of all Jewish houses. He further advocated that Jewish prayer books and writings concerning the Talmud be taken from the Jewish people, and that Jewish rabbis should not be allowed to teach, or else be executed. In addition, he wrote that Jews should not be allowed to travel into the country or travel over roads while being protected, on the accusation that they have no business being in the country at all. Luther also advocated severe economic restrictions on the Jews, including taking away all currency or wealth owned by any Jewish person, and outlawing any Jewish person from practicing ]. He wrote that, for Jews to gain food, hard manual labor of various kinds should be imposed upon "young, strong Jews and Jewesses", and if they would not work, that they should be expelled from society forever. Luther was also a believer in the ] and ] allegations against Jews. Four centuries later, a first edition of the treatise was given to ], editor of the Nazi newspaper Der Stürmer, by the city of Nuremberg in honor of his birthday in 1937. The newspaper later described the treatise as the most radically anti-Semitic tract ever published, an opinion agreed upon by contemporary scholars. German philosopher Karl Jaspers said of it: "There you already have the whole Nazi program." |
|
|
|
|
|
No content has really been removed in the creation of this paragraph based on the first one, yet it has 54 fewer words, and it looks like several of the other paragraphs in the section look like they could be worded in a much shorter way without removing any content at all. I think that if everything in this section was condensed by simple wording changes and simplifications first rather than removing or adding content, then at the end of the day, much less content would have to be removed, if any at all. While I admit the above version of the first paragraph loses the distinct flavor of Luther's particular wording, by describing what he wrote more succinctly, a reader gets the picture much faster, and if the whole section was condensed by wording and meaning alone rather than content, then it would be much closer to summary style in the end. ] 19:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Yes, your version of the paragraph is better. Thanks! You are correct that applying a similar approach to other paragraphs will save us much space, providing all sides of the issue are represented. I believe the result will still be too long, however. At the very least, this section should be the same length as the others, about 4 kb in length. I think most of the detail should be moved to the sub-article, as suggested by ]. Even that is more than what most encyclopedias give to the subject. --<b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="navy">]</font></b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">Wyneken</font><sup><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">]</font></sup> 20:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I agree that Homestarmy has done a very good job of shortening the section while still maintaining much of the needed specifics that have been so often generalized, minimized, or ignored. I still believe that direct quotations are the best method, and are the least likely to contain a POV (which both sides want to avoid). Perhaps we can eventually find a way to meet everyone's idea of truth and fairness about Martin Luther. ] 21:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::]'s version works for me. It serves as a good summary. Any and all points that can be expanded upon, can be made in the sub-article. ] 22:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::Removing 54 words isn't a significant shortening of the sub-article. There are <b>two other articles on this subject</b> that provide plenty of detail. They are clearly referenced. Why do people want to keep pushing their POV on this sub-article? It's too long. It needs to be shorter. There are two entire other articles on the same subject. What part of this can't you people understand? ] 02:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC) 02:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:*Come on --- let's try to be cordial to one another as we bring one of the most controversial articles (apparently) on WP to FA status for the first time. i.e. |
|
|
::*Homestarmy, thanks for joining the conversation and your efforts to tightening the section we are struggling with. |
|
|
:::*And, even more so, thank you for the insight that what we are struggling with may not be the number of bytes, but the content of the section itself. (Concise, well-written, content rich and appropriately cited text is generally what I like to see myself, but, that may be my POV.) |
|
|
:*I am not going to really be able to weigh in until the weekend due to hellishness at my workplace ... but ... off the top of my head ... if we can get some of the editors who are interested in a 'long' version to comment in this thread ... or ... if Homestarmy wants to exercise his/her bold rights, he/she or anyone could substitute his/her suggested version into the article to see what happens. We all know how to revert the article, even those of us who are rightfully just listening and not talking here right now. And, if there are qualms about needing to talk about such edits in 'talk' before touching the article, we've got a thread already in place. As far as I'm concerned right now, 54 words less is a step in the direction we want to go. Thanks again, Homestarmy. I hope you stick around for a while ... ] 10:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: As I've said above, Homestamy's edit is a step in the right direction, but the whole section needs to be very much smaller. It is in no way summary style. As it stands, the section is nearly twice as long as any other section in the article. Given that most other biographies devote very little space to the issue at all, the subject should not have that much weight at all. Most of the detail needs to go to the subarticle if we are ever to make FA. I will continue to document this point above. --<b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="navy">]</font></b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">Wyneken</font><sup><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">]</font></sup> 11:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I hear you, CTSW! I find your message clear. I think/hope/pray we're going to get there ... with everyone who's active with the article and its talk page. I guess maybe you could say I believe in miracles? Could we see what happens if we go with the "54 words shorter" version? Like, if it gets reverted immediately, we may have a "problem." ] 12:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I plan to propose some shorter versions of the next sections soon too, but to Justas, 54 less words just by altering only one of the paragraphs isn't half bad, i've messed with enough essays with a set in stone maximum word length to know that every word counts sometimes. ] 13:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Here's some more of it: |
|
|
|
|
|
:"British historian ] wrote that before <cite>On the Jews and their Lies</cite>, Luther got the Jews banished from Saxony in 1537, and in the next decade, other German towns, though he was not able to banish them from the town of ] in 1543. His followers, however, continued to persecute the Jews, raiding the Berlin synagogue in 1572, and in 1573, Jews were banned from all of Germany. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Few Historians doubt that Luther's rhetoric contributed greatly to or foreshadowed the actions of the Nazis when ] claimed power in Germany in 1933, although they often debate the extent of Luther's influence on the events leading to the ]. The debate most often concerns whether it is ] to view Luther's sentiments as an example, or early precursor of, racial anti-Semitism — hatred of the Jewish people — rather than ] — contempt for the religion of ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
:In <cite>The World Must Know</cite>, the official publication of the ], the museum's project director ] writes that Luther's belief that the Bible was the sole authority on Christianity fed his hatred against Jews, due to his impressions concerning their rejection of Jesus as the ]. To Luther, salvation depended on believing that Jesus is the son of God, a belief not shared by Jews. Earlier in his life, Luther argued that Jews were prevented from converting to ] when Christians preached what he saw as an impure gospel, and he believed Jews would respond favorably to the gospel if it were presented to them gently. He expressed concerns for the Jew's poor and compulsory living conditions, and insisted that denial of Jesus being born a Jew was ]. Graham Noble, a writer, says that Luther wanted to save Jews on his own terms, not exterminate them, but that beneath Luther's apparent reasonableness, there was a "biting intolerance," which produced "ever more furious demands for their conversion to his own brand of Christianity." Berenbaum quotes Luther later on apparently supporting the idea that Christians should have killed the Jews: “We are at fault in not slaying them. Rather we allow them to live freely in our midst despite their murder, cursing, blaspheming, lying and defaming.” |
|
|
|
|
|
That saves about 47 words, but this one was harder, particularily because Luther's beliefs aren't explicitly inline cited here and i'm not about to summarize something too heavily that may have no business being summarized at all. ] 00:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Diet of Worms== |
|
|
|
|
|
Why has the ''Diet of Worms and Excommunication'' section been cut? I know there's another article about it, but we did have a good little section on it here, in my opinion.] 21:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Hmm... I didn't notice that had been done since last we worked on it. As long as the results are short, I don't mind having you put it back. --<b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="navy">]</font></b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">Wyneken</font><sup><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">]</font></sup> 21:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Um - Worms & Excommunication needs mentioning! The Lutheran part of my conscience is troubled by it not being present. Can you point me to the section somehow or send it to me in email or place it on my talk or just put it in the article, bracing for a revert, but not one without discussion here if need be? I expect this was 'cut' by mistake and not by deliberate intent ... but ... don't really know. ] 10:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: That's what I get for not watching over vacation -- or for not checking when it was mentioned. The section is back. It really needs to go to summary style also. --<b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="navy">]</font></b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">Wyneken</font><sup><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">]</font></sup> 11:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: This one has no controversy to it at all, as far as I remember. The question is only how much detail? --<b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="navy">]</font></b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">Wyneken</font><sup><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">]</font></sup> 12:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Excellent! '''THANK YOU! :-)''' So, let's try our 'summary style' expertise on this section ... Or is this another highly controversial section? ... got to get ready for work! ] 12:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Wrong last name== |
|
|
Luther was born as Luder, just as his father and mother. He changed it to Luther, because the meaning of the word "Luder" in the german language |
|
|
is quite negative, it's still used today to refer to somebody who is hormic and raw in his nature. See the german article or profound scholastic literature about him. < retrieved by ] 10:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)> |
|
|
|
|
|
:See above. A listing of his name in an encyclopedia should be the name that he is best known for. The German language was not standardized in 1483: Luther was instrumental in standardizing the name. Even the German Wiki has it '''Martin Luther'''. Luther Latinized and Hellenized his name to ''Lutherus'' and ''eleutherios'' respectively. He also signed his name "Luther." This debate is a matter of orthography (how a word is written and spelled). In historical works Hans Luther is sometimes denoted "Hans Luder", but not Martin Luther. This change should not be made. '''It is not the wrong last name, but the right last name.'''--] 00:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
A single sentence or a footnote regarding this point is the most I'd be interested in seeing on this. If you have a favorite resource for this material, maybe we can simply add a footnote number to the main body in the 'best' spot, and have a short footnote and book or journal reference for more info. Just a thought. Thanks for the topic. Believe me, I completely empathize with the tribulations of having a German surname that rarely anyone seems to understand or get right ... (Who am I addressing by the way? Is that an unsigned comment I see above?) ] 10:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I think a footnote on this matter would be most helpful. I do not think that Luther should be listed as "Luder," though.--] 21:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Yes, for me too, it is Luther; not Luder. ] 01:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Not really comfortable with this edit ... but I'm listening ... == |
|
|
|
|
|
Whoa ... it's going a little too fast for me right now, Justas Jonas. But, I'll just watch and try to talk since I'm too tired to be really constructive right now. I've been watching your edit summaries. One that I see is (''"further trimming to avoid giving impression that "minority viewpoint" is equal to majority viewpoint"''). '''Please articulate just what you find the "majority" viewpoint to be so I can better follow your thoughts.''' Thanks! ] 01:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I agree. These are indeed bold edits to say the least. I would like to point out that like all Misplaced Pages policies, ] is hemmed in by other policies, such as the one, I forget its precise wording, that articles of long standing should be trimmed dramatically only after discussion on talk pages. This article is a compromise version worked out after expenditure of much angst. That partly accounts for the length, and the reason it has resisted cutting in the past. --] 19:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: I like the size, which is the point I've been arguing for above. I think the most positive way of handling this is asking... is there anything missing? If so, what? Are there details that could yet be moved to the sub-article? --<b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="navy">]</font></b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">Wyneken</font><sup><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">]</font></sup> 19:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: I guess I wasn't needed after all then, nobodies challenged it. ] 22:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The present version makes it look as if the significance of the Theses was that he complained about indulgences. But this was nothing new: many reformers had complained about indulgences before, including Luther himself. What was new was that he challenged the authority of the pope to make decisions about salvation. To show the importance of the Theses in the development of Luther's position, we need to connect them to the theory that acts of piety and penance (in which Luther would go on to include pilgrimage, monasticism, celibacy etc.) are irrelevant to faith because God alone decides on your faith and salvation. From that seed everything else grew, in my opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
If a cut-down version of this section is required, I'd suggest the following, which keeps essential details (Tetzel's name is almost as intrinsic a part of the tradition as the door posting) and theological points: |
|
|
|
|
|
==<cite>The 95 Theses (suggested alternative trim)</cite>== |
|
|
{{main|The 95 Theses}} |
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
On ] ], Luther wrote to ], protesting the sale of ] in his episcopal territories and inviting him to a disputation on the matter. He enclosed the ], a copy of which, according to tradition, he posted the same day on the door of the Castle Church in ]. |
|
|
<!-- Please leave the details of the discussion as to whether he nailed or mailed the theses in the main article. We are trying to use ] here. --> |
|
|
|
|
|
Luther objected to a saying attributed to ], a papal commissioner for indulgences: "As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs";<ref>Bainton, 60; Brecht, 1:182; Kittelson, 104.</ref> and he insisted that since pardons were God's alone to grant, those who claimed indulgences absolved buyers from all punishments and granted them salvation were in error.<ref>''Errant itaque indulgentiarum predicatores ii, qui dicunt per pape indulgentias hominem ab omni pena solvi et salvari.'' (Thesis 21)</ref> Christians, he said, must not slacken in following Christ on account of such false assurances.<ref>''Exhortandi sunt Christiani, ut caput suum Christum per penas, mortes infernosque sequi studeant. Ac sic magis per multas tribulationes intrare celum quam per securitatem pacis confidant.'' (Theses 94 and 95)</ref> In challenging the pope's authority in this way, Luther took, perhaps unintentionally, a step towards the break with Rome. |
|
|
|
|
|
The ] were quickly translated into German, printed, and widely copied, making the controversy one of the first in history to be fanned by the ].<ref>Brecht, 1:204–205.</ref> Within two weeks, the theses had spread throughout Germany; within two months throughout Europe. In contrast, the response of the papacy was painstakingly slow. |
|
|
|
|
|
:In my opinion, it's difficult to be any pithier without abandoning the essential theological points. (The notes are there to show how close this keeps to what Luther actually said.) ] 23:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Too much== |
|
|
|
|
|
I now see more sections chopped at in a similar way. The result is less coherence, in my opinion. For example, since we start "Return to Wittenberg" with "Around Christmas 1521 Anabaptists from Zwickau added to the anarchy", the reader now might ask "what anarchy?" Luther's stay at the Wartburg is important for the development of his thought in the context of the radical reforms that convulsed Wittenberg while he was away. Transitional information is needed. |
|
|
|
|
|
Similarly, a section has been cut from "Response of the Papacy" which traced the incremental enlargement of Luther's doctrinal revolt in reaction to a series of attempts to rein him in. It showed how the more he was pushed, the greater became his defiance, and the more extreme his theological opposition to the papacy. By cutting this material out ''en bloc'', we end up with a jumpy story that no longer addresses how one thing led to another. |
|
|
|
|
|
This article does need to be reduced, but it should be done through the subtle process of editing rather than the blunt one of taking a meat cleaver to it, in my opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." Albert Einstein. |
|
|
|
|
|
] 02:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::This article has been like the weather. Everyone just talks about it, but nobody does anything about it. It was just way, way, way too long. Misplaced Pages is not a textbook, it is a quick and easy, down and dirty, on-line introduction to things, not an end in itself. The article has been, frankly, and I do not mean to offend, but it has been ridiculously long and has been a battleground for idealogical differences to play themselves out constantly, with one POV warring against another, and all POVs denying that they have one, but the other guy sure does! It's been silly. I've spent a lot of time reading the history here. The best thing to do is chop it way back. It has become like one of those bushes you never both to trim back. Keep it short! Keep it simple! Short is good. ] 02:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: I support Q's version of the section. It is about the right size and smoothly written. It could be smaller, excluding the quotations, but they do help fill things out. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: That having been said, We need to do everything we can to write in the style of an academic abstract, a.k.a. ], while also providing smooth and easily read prose. The details should be put in sub-articles, so that those who want "the rest of the story" can read it. --<b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="navy">]</font></b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">Wyneken</font><sup><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">]</font></sup> 11:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:*CTSW, I mostly agree you. And I'm coming to the conclusion that the only way I may see an article like what the group envisions is if one or more of us build one on a private user page and sub-pages. When ready, we could discuss it with folks, still leaving the content there. Then, when a significant number of us were happy with it, we would replace the entire existing article with our "re-write." Due to the nature of us all having time to "work" on this at different times, it is too discombobulated (sp?) for us to accomplish anything here if there are folks who want to edit w/o discussing. It is too easy to end up with an oft fragmented article that we still are not proud of. Just my 2 cents. Please know I do appreciate your perspective and scholarly, summary-style article proposals. I feel you are right. A case in point: even I have not yet gotten through the entire Martin Luther article once yet. It is just too long. And there are too many gaps and questions. If I really want to understand this, I am better off going to another encyclopedia. Sad, but true. ] 11:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I see some merit in Justas's approach, if applied uniformly and fairly. He does have a point about summary style and this article being about the weather (everybody talking and not doing) and also about the POVs. However, this is not an endorsement of all his cuts by any means. I would like to see more imput from other editors from both sides, fer instance, on the always contentious Jewish stuff.--] 22:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Not Needed == |
|
|
|
|
|
''I guess I wasn't needed after all then, nobodies challenged it. Homestarmy 22:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)'' |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think/feel this is true, Homestarmy. Some of us want to discuss, reach a bit of compromise and consensus and then change the article. Others want to come from out of the blue (new user, strong POV) and just edit the article. The latter is not my style unless it is something that is unlikely to cause discontent. Unfortunately I'm too busy in real life this week to spend much time in the article. ] 11:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I was asked by a friend to come help out, but since the Anti-semitism part is so much shorter now, I suppose it doesn't necessarily need to be re-written :/. Having it mostly be quotes though seems sort of odd, my first re-written paragraph might be helpful, but I was primarily re-writing things to try and help lower the length. ] 13:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Don't go off just yet, as this entire article is in a state of flux. I am sure that efforts will be made to re-lengthen the article in general, as that has been the pattern.--] 22:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Relying on quotes and not writing our own material could be considered the easy way out. i.e. we aren't able to write in our own words, so we quote someone else. Any academic writing class I've taken has emphasized this and provided guidelines for the the appropriate amount of material that should/could be quoted. ] 23:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==What is the answer?== |
|
|
Justas Jonas, I would appreciate you answering, directly and publicly, my question. You've wanted this from others on this talk page. But, you don't really answer other people's questions. I'm looking for a '''content answer'''. I don't need to hear about the existence of sub-articles and I don't need to hear about the length of the current article and I don't need to hear about how many times "we" have talked about this before. (My WP usage is senior to yours, according to the Justas Jonas username usage trail. So, WE have not talked about this before.) '''What majority viewpoint? Viewpoint on what topic/aspect/theory/thought? Are you sure you're speaking for the majority?''' Thanks for the forthcoming clarification. ] 11:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
One that I see is (''"further trimming to avoid giving impression that "minority viewpoint" is equal to majority viewpoint"''). '''Please articulate just what you find the "majority" viewpoint to be so I can better follow your thoughts.''' |
|
|
|
|
|
] 11:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::A reference to the "majority/minority" viewpoint in the Luther and Antisemitism article on the question of the influence of Luther's harsh comments about Jews during the Nazi era. ] 12:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Please elaborate. Talk is a good place to do that. As I read what you are calling majority does not necessarily reflect majority. If you don't talk here, I am more inclined to revert your edits. I'd rather not do that, but if you don't help me understand your point, which I currently disagree with or don't understand, you don't leave me many options. If you have specific points in the edit history you want me to see, you could be helpful and direct me to them with links. i.e. "07:00, January 11, 2007 Justas Jonas (Talk | contribs) '''(Try reading the edit history more carefully)''' is not really useful - please write here what you are talking about. I do and have read the edit histories; thus my question to you, which, remains unanswered. ] 12:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Asked and answered. Article length presently balances properly between the majority view and the minority view. I can't help you understand what you refuse to understand. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Nice example of collaboration:''' |
|
|
|
|
|
Would you like to try again? ] 12:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I agree. I was confused a bit by the minority/majority remark. Can you pls clarify?--] 22:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Until JJ reveals it to us, it is at best a mysterious majority on a mysterious aspect that JJ is an expert on, but he cannot cite the topic or the scholars he is relying on. It is so obvious, yet is anyone understanding what he is talking about? Scholars in general don't profess there is a majority viewpoint on the more complex aspects of Luther and the Jews, yet, JJ knows what the majority stands for. Sounds like JJ POV to me. If someone else can explain what JJ is talking about, I'd appreciate it. |
|
|
|
|
|
::''I can't help you understand what you refuse to understand.'' No, JJ, I'm not refusing to understand something - you are refusing to answer honest questions from another editor. |
|
|
|
|
|
::Just blank your talk page like this , calling it spam and post messages like titled '''Your_patronizing_remarks_and_personal_insults_on_the_Luther_page''' and feel like you've made yourself clear. I wonder why this isn't in the WP guidelines yet? ] 00:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Here, let me try to make this as plain and simple as possible, since, Keesie, you are so terribly and sadly confused. I am referring to the balance in the "Luther and Antisemitism" article. The amount of text devoted to the majority scholarly view must be more than that devoted to the minority view, otherwise, it would appear that there are simply two equally popular viewpoints on this issue. Now, if you don't understand that, the problem is wholly your's not mine. I can not help you if you choose to remain "confused" and choose not to "understand." You can drop your melodramatic comments, unless that is just your "style" as an "experienced" Misplaced Pages editor who is just so terribly busy you only have time to contribute these kinds of remarks. ] 00:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Nationalism== |
|
|
|
|
|
It has been said that Luther contributed to the rise of nationalism in Europe. Could this be mentioned in the article? ] 18:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Do you have a reference for it? I vaguely remember hearing it, but have no recall of seeing it in print. --<b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="navy">]</font></b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">Wyneken</font><sup><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">]</font></sup> 21:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
the beginning of the article says "despite the fact that Luther did not advocate the murdering of Jews", however, later in the article, it goes on to say "In Robert Michael's view, Luther's words 'We are at fault in not slaying them' amounted to a sanction for murder. 'God's anger with them is so intense,' Luther concluded, 'that gentle mercy will only tend to make them worse, while sharp mercy will reform them but little. Therefore, in any case, away with them!'." is this not advocating for murder in at least some sense? in any case, the addition of "did not *directly* advocate the murdering of Jews" would clear this up.
Buzgie (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Add "==Ministry and Later Years==" to the line before the one referenced in the previous suggestion. Reformat if needed. RetroOortus (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Most historians contend that Luther's work contributed to the antisemitism rampant in early 20th Century Germany and the rise of the Nazi Party. "Some historians contend" implies this is a minority opinion. The only thing that they seem to disagree on is whether his antisemitic works were taken seriously in the intervening years. This sentence deserves some clarification. Bastique 15:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
I see that Luther's of influence in Nazi mentioned in the page. But it's there something in all totalitarian Luther's attitudes. Including in communists and Americans who create some perfect idealism book making every person good. FairfieldAve (talk) 04:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
Already done Unless I am mistaken, this has been done. Geardona (talk to me?) 00:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)