Talk:Martin Luther/Archive 16

Suggestion
This article has been stuck for the past two years. I'd like to make a suggestion that may help move the article forward. In general a decent biography article can be derived from a small number of good sources (standard biographies). If the contributors would agree to, say, five biographies and only use those biographies as sources, then a well-balanced article may result. The encyclopedia is for the general interest of a reader. The idea is not to put forward one or another scholar's views on Luther. Comments? --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This sounds reasonable, but it is ambitious. None of the biographies are unexceptionable, and biographies are not the best references for the theology. One cannot assume that this page is a biography of Luther, as such (but a page called "Life of Martin Luther" might be a good idea): it is a page on Luther, which means that his theology and his historical significance (some of it beyond his own imagining) should comprise leading elements of the text, in my opinion. I would like to see this page achieve "good article" status again, but FA may be a bridge too far. There are so many issues involved that the page can become unstable in short order. It can be heartbreaking when one's painstaking edits—and everything about Luther requires so much time-consuming research and care—get removed or trashed during disputes.


 * Articles about Luther's fellows might be a good way into the Lutheran reformation: it should be easier, and perhaps more fun, to bring articles on Melanchthon, Bucer, etc. up to FA.qp10qp (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I know the suggestion of limiting the sources will not make an exceptional article, but at least it will be something that we won't be embarassed about (well, at least I find it embarrassing that this one got into the 2007 Wikipedia selection for schools). If the number of sources were limited, then yes, the subsections like theology, Luther's thought, etc. will be weak. But at least an agreed set of sources should limit most disputes. --RelHistBuff (talk) 21:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The three volume one by Martin Brecht is seminal, comprehensive, and authoritative. Roland Bainton's biography Here I Stand is a classic. An older biography would be Julius Koestlin's, and perhaps a modern one could balance it off: there is Oberman's (Man Between God and the Devil), Todd's, or Haile's.--Drboisclair (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oberman, certainly. A. G. Dickens, The German Nation and Martin Luther is essential. qp10qp (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Dickens is good because he like Bainton comes from a different religous denomination. Brecht, whom I take to be Lutheran, is recognized as comprehensive and exhaustive. Oberman's biography is slightly criticized by scholars, though Heiko Oberman was a first rate scholar, who knew the late Middle Ages in Europe like the back of his hand. He wrote a monograph on Gabriel Biel. There is also Heinrich Bornkamm, Luther in Mid-Career.--Drboisclair (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oberman, definitely. Agree about Brecht and Bainton. Some further thoughts on this. I am a little worried about the feasibility of my own suggestion. An optimistic scenario might be 3-5 editors agreeing on using 5-7 good scholarly sources and collaboratively rewriting the whole article based solely on the agreed sources. The goal of getting a decent, but not perfect article on Luther that would equal and perhaps surpass Britannica's or Encarta's may be reached. However, the nightmare scenario occurs later when a few persistent editors arrive insisting on putting in their POV with citation supports from "their" sources. They might argue that the original editors are acting as a cabal, bring items up to RfC, Arbcom, etc.. How do we avoid the nightmare scenario? --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's exactly the problem. And the objectors may not be entirely unjustified, because there is a vast amount of scholarship and commentary outside the biographies. Wikipedia policy allows referenced academic material of all sorts, though it must be in proportion to the overall scholarship. But, with so much stuff out there, who is to judge what is in proportion to the overall scholarship? I do think "Life of Martin Luther" would be manageable, though, as a separate main article; after all, we have Shakespeare's life. qp10qp (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)I agree that that is the problem. My feeling is that the strength of Wikipedia is in the fact that it is built through the collaboration of everyone interested. I think that the fussing about it passing muster as a "featured article" causes the loss of important information. The skill of editors should be to mold the referenced data that is provided. I have been told years ago that Wikipedia does not need to be like Encarta and Britiannica.--Drboisclair (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the weakness of Wikipedia is that an article can be dominated by a single or a small coterie of editors who have the free time and the persistence to push their point of views or to drive decent editors away. No one wants to seriously work on this article now. OK, let's say that we work on a separate "Life of Martin Luther" article. That would still leave the "Martin Luther" article in a sad state. It will be a very poor cousin to other encyclopedias and Wikipedia loses credibility. Is there no way we can make a decent "Martin Luther" article? I am beginning to think not. --RelHistBuff (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I should think that the article Martin Lutherhdfhfd itself would be the most logical (and best) place for information about "the life of Martin Luther." If we need to split anything out into a separate article, it would be more logical to split out "Theological ideas of Martin Luther" or "Disputes involving Martin Luther" or something of that sort (obviously, these are intended as sample article titles only). WP:SUMMARY and MOS:BIO may be helpful. -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't be about taking anything away from this article. As Wikipedia grows, it's logical for full-sized "main" articles to emerge on aspects of a spinal article. Overlap is fine on Wikipedia, because it is not paper or book. I just think it would be more feasible to write a featured-standard pure biography than to bring every aspect of the present article up to featured standard. qp10qp (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, please do not misunderstand me. To repeat, I should think that the article Martin Luther itself would be the most logical (and best) place for information about "the life of Martin Luther."
 * "It wouldn't be about taking anything away from this article." - Agreed.
 * "As Wikipedia grows, it's logical for full-sized "main" articles to emerge on aspects of a spinal article. ... Overlap is fine on Wikipedia" - Of course. As I said, IMHO the "spinal" article should contain the biographical information.
 * "I just think it would be more feasible to write a featured-standard pure biography" - IMHO a "featured-standard pure biography" should definitely be written, and it should be at Martin Luther.
 * Have a good one. - 201.37.229.117 (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I would agree with 201.37.229.117. The "spinal" article should contain the pure biography. The question is whether we should provide summaries of the "daughter" articles. Is it possible to not provide summaries at all (for the first instance) and put links instead in the "See also" section? That way the controversies can remain in the "daughter" articles, while the pure biography would remain non-controversial (hopefully). The "daughter" articles in the See also section would be "Theology of Martin Luther", "Luther and antisemitism", and maybe "Augsburg Confession". --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As an example, I just placed a link to "Theology of Martin Luther" now in the "See also" section. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I also spun out the Printing Press and Propaganda section that was recently added to the article. It is long and the topic is quite specialised, so it should be an article in itself. --RelHistBuff (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wat about the date of the first prs. church —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylorrule09 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Dead link
Under Peasant's folley, in the boxed "description" the citation, #78 is dead.. No axe to grind, just noticed the way anything that has anything remotely to do with Jews or Zionism has been chopped slashed revised,re-imagined etc. etc., It would be cool if random slanted un-referenced stuff could be edited, or verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shootingsparks (talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 April 2008
 * There. I have fixed the dead link that the above editor kindly brought to our attention. As to antisemitism, the editor should look at the new Luther and antisemitism article. --Drboisclair (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Bogus stmt
This stmt is weird:
 * Because of the perceived unity of the medieval Church with the secular rulers of western Europe, the widespread acceptance of Luther's doctrines and popular vindication of his thinking on individual liberties were both phenomenal and unprecedented. [citation needed]

What? All perceived meanings I can attach to this stmt are factually wrong. F.ex.: if the Church represented some symbol of power and oppression, how come many kings and dukes and other men in power came to adher to Lutheranism? (Citation certainly needed). How come Luther rejected the peasants position in the peasant wars? The driving force behind the Reformation was something else, not some kind of early liberalist revolution - probably much more like economical and political conditions at the time.  Said: Rursus   ☻   10:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC) [[Media:Insert non-formatted text here]]

Martin Luther/Protestant Reformation
This man was a revolutionary innovator who challenged the pope one on one and made him look foolish. He wrote down all of the church's faults, which is called the 95 theses, and put it on the doorway of a church in Whitenburg, Germany. Then someone who would later become a follower to Martin copied down this document and transmitted it throughout all all of Europe. The pope saw this document and was extremely dissapointed in Martin Luther. Martin was banished and labeled a heretic. Soon after the pope wrote the Edic of Worms which stated that no one was allowed to feed or house Martin Luther. While Martin's popularity grew so did the Protestant Reformation. Martin taught that your faith was all that you needed to be saved and that the bible was the only infallible teaching. With these teachings he formed the Protestant church which is loyal only to Bible and not to the Pope. While in hiding Martin Luther wrote the bible in the vernacular. Which was never done before. After about a year the church met with its representatives and changed ideas and teachings based on what Martin taught. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.158.79.248 (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This page is for discussing how to improve Wikipedia's article about Martin Luther, not for airing one's personal opinions about him. —Angr 17:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Martin Luther was not the first to write the Bible in vernacular. Nearly 700 years before him in the 9th century, Cyril and Methodius (missionaries to the Slavs) translated the Bible into what is now called Old Church Slavonic. Of course, that language has gotten old and hard to understand in modern Russia, so in 1654 Patriarch Nikon had it translated into what is now called Church Slavonic (and he did so rather forcefully). And of course there were many others long before them who translated the Old Testament to Greek, way before Russia ever started to be Christianized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.181.54 (talk) 04:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge
I think that Hans Luther (15th century) should be merge into the Martin Luther section, which already has the photo and some information on him. First, Hans is non-notable alone and is only known for being Martin's father. Most of the information can be easily merged to the Martin Luther article. The same goes for Margarethe Luther, though that is a little longer. Reywas92 Talk 16:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering that Wikipedia is an unabridged Micro and Macro pedia I would oppose this action as there is research and information on Luther's father that would justify having an article in its own right.--Drboisclair (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would oppose this particular merge as well. This article has a tendency to get a little bloated as it is, no reason to add more to the plate. Pastordavid (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no reason the abridge the information, only merge. It would only be a few sentences and would not bloat much further, as much is redundant.  As it says "best known as the father...," this could be deleted at AFD anyway, as WP:NOTABILITY is not inherited. The external link is about Martin anyway and contains very little information about Hans.  Reywas92 Talk 19:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose; I generally approve of this kind of action to get rid of (arguably) nn bio articles, but this is a great big article and we should be fighting to keep it concise. Splitting off (arguably) nn bio articles to trim down the size of this article is a worthy action.  Tempshill (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Considering that every line in Hans Luther (15th century) mentions Martin, and that there is currently only a brief paragraph which is already largely duplicated in this article, it seems reasonable to redirect the Hans article here, at least until information pertaining to Hans in his own right can be added. --M P er el 17:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) If you are admitting that it is a nn bio, then shall I bring it to AFD?  I see zero notability other than the relation, and if it shouldn't be merged, then it should be deleted.  I will agree with MPerel.  Reywas92 Talk 17:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't researched myself, but Drboisclair says above there is information available to warrant an article on him, so I'm not sure it should be deleted outright, just redirected until it can be expanded. --M P er el 17:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I will redirect both now, allowing for recreation. Reywas92 Talk 00:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess that it is up to some of us to recreate the article if we find the data; however, I opposed this action for the still pertinent reasons: 1) Wikipedia should be both a Micro- and a Macro- pedia and 2) the bloated nature of the Martin Luther article itself. Well, Reywas92, you got what you wanted, so let it go at that.--Drboisclair (talk) 17:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Theology
Where is the theology? As much as I've perceived, he was a pragmatically oriented semi-mystic (extroverted, some literalist tendencies, some academical criticism tendencies, but generally practical and oriented towards ordinary peoples' spiritual development).  Said: Rursus   ☻   11:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I observer there is now a full para in the intro that describes his theology. Someone nicely fixed this, thanks a lot! ... said: Rursus (bork²) 07:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Eucharist and Hypostatic Union
The statement that Luther "affirmed the doctrine of Hypostatic Union" is unnecessary and misleading. Both Luther and Zwingli affirmed this doctrine, and to attribute it only to Luther leads one to believe that Zwingli denied it. This is not NPOV. 210.193.237.146 (talk) 00:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

On Christian Liberty
When I typed "On Christian Liberty" into the search box, I was redirected to the Martin Luther article, although I later found there is a page for this, On the Freedom of a Christian. Can an admin fix the redirect? AaRH (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Pastordavid (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Indulgences
Indulgences have nothing to do with the forgiveness of sins or the obtaining of salvation, but the removal of temporal punishment due regarding sins already forgiven. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm

The section makes it sound as if it is Catholic doctine that salvation can be bought or has anything to do indulgences: "Roman Catholic theology stated that faith alone, whether fiduciary or dogmatic, cannot justify man[33]; and that only such faith as is active in charity and good works (fides caritate formata) can justify man.[34] These good works could be obtained by donating money to the church." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doregnob (talk • contribs) 04:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Controversial?
I don't want to disagree or anything but don't you think that saying "his legacy remains controversial" at the end of the opening paragraph beside the point? Yes he said things people didn't agree with IE about the jews, at the same time he is more know for the things like the Lutheran church that people do agree with. To me it seems that if you end the paragraph with "his legacy remains controversial" it says he was great but he did this and this and this wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.158.217 (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree that ending the opening with his comments about Jews seems a very poor way to discuss Luther, just as bad is incorporating the Nazi's into the opening. There really is no reason to end an opening article on one of the most important Christian religious figures of the 16th century (if not ever) with a discussion of the Nazis, its unfairly biased the article and should be removed from the introduction. Which is not to say the Nazis' use of Luther's statements isn't a subject worth including in either a separate article or in a subsection.  The current layout however overstates the modern controversy and legacy of Luther's antisemitism and gives a false impression that he was unique in these views or even a major figure in the evolution of Christan/Jewish relations. It also takes away from Luther's primary accomplishments as the father of the reformation and paints him in a negative light unfairly. Jewittm


 * In reply to the above, I don't think it makes any difference to his seminal role in the Reformation. He is (amongst other things) a political and polemical figure, not a saint or a prophet. If we have a section on Luther and the Jews, we need to mention the issue in the lead. qp10qp (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
This whole article is wrong. It doesn't even mention his "I have a dream speech"! Instead it says he was white? This article has been really badly vandalised! 202.67.74.151 (talk) 01:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You are looking for this article: Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.. Thank you for your time, <font color="#00FF00">Matthew <font color="#00FF00">Yeager  01:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

"Father of Protestantism"?
Well, he may be so regarded in the Germanic states and in the USA, but in England, and those nations who trace their cultural inheritance from England, shouldn't John Wycliffe, (who predated Luther by more than a century), be more suited to that title?

68.228.208.191 (talk) 14:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Wycliffe isn't the only pre-Luther reformer; Peter Waldo and Jan Hus could also be considered progenitors of Protestantism. But it was Luther who really got it off the ground. —Angr 14:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The word "Protestant" is rather technical, as it refers to the princes who protested the decision of the Second Diet of Speyer which reversed its previous stance and enforced the Edict of Worms. Thus "Protestant" in the narrow sense only applies to those German princes.  It is highly anachronistic to refer to Wycliffe as a "Protestant."Mlorfeld (talk) 04:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem with Wycliffe is he never had the lasting effect that Luther had. If William Tyndale had not become entangled with his ravings against King Henery he may have lived long enough to start a reformation in England.Johnwrd (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The opening sentence currently reads "Martin Luther ... changed the course of Western civilization by initiating the Protestant Reformation." While Luther must surely be regarded as one of the leaders of the Protestant Reformation, he did not bring the Reformation about single-handedly. Furthermore, an assessment of his impact on Western history is a matter of interpretation (POV) and doesn't belong in the introduction. --RichardVeryard (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur with this demur. This is an example of hyperbole: more accurate would be something like: "Luther's dispute over Indulgences marks the beginning of the Protestant Reformation ..." Luther didn't set out to start the Protestant Reformation: in the 1983 English film "Martin Luther, Heretic (1983 film)" Luther is portrayed rightly saying, "I didn't know all this was going to happen!" What is the wonder of it is that like many advances in human history it happened inadvertantly while people were going about their usual business. Luther's business was simply studying and teaching the Bible in depth, when he began comparing the Bible to the medieval Christianity of his day. The rhetoric of the sentence gives the impression that Luther one day got the idea that he was going to reform the church, so he began a reform. The reformers that came after him like Calvin deliberately made it a programmatic operation. Of course, this also became true of the the Wittenberg Reformation too.--Drboisclair (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Link to commons
I have moved the commons links to place them in the white space of the see-also section. They are taking up a whole column of space and crowding the entire ref section. This means I have to remove the image of the coin from the see-also section. If anyone can find a nice place in the article for the coin, please place the image there. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Perfect! Thank you. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is the criticism section?
Asked a Lutheran ... said: Rursus (bork²) 14:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There shouldn't be. See this banner:

--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Misread Source "Schaff-Herzog, Luther, Martin, 72" [55]
== In the main article it states, "Frederick III, Elector of Saxony had him discreetly intercepted on his way home by masked horsemen..." The author cites his source as [55]; "Schaff-Herzog, Luther, Martin, 72", the link below. By reading this document it states that Luther was not "discreetly intercepted" it reads, "HE [Luther] was seized, with his own connivance..." ==Meaning he was seized under Luther's consent. ==This could be a simple mistake, misunderstanding or a typo. **JMeljefe** (talk) 04:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)**JMeljefe**


 * I don't think there is a contradiction. The incident was complex. The Elector could not be seen to openly take Luther's side, which was why this little charade was enacted. Luther may have connived at it, but the horsemen were masked to keep their identities secret. It was discreetly done. Schaff's wording is difficult to transfer to the article neat, as it could be confusing. Therefore I will add a couple more sources for the incident as follows:


 * Elton, Reformation Europe, p. 52 : "They were friends, acting by arrangement with his territorial prince who thought it best to remove the outlaw from the reach of the authorities".


 * MacCulloch, Reformation, p. 132: "Friedrich had made provision to keep him safe; once Luther was within Saxon territory, a staged kidnapping carried the marked man out of public view".


 * The trouble with Schaff's use of the words "seized" and "connivance" is that, to the average reader they may seem contradictory. In fact, I don't know that Luther's connivance is documented, though it is perfectly plausible. It could be, however, that the Elector thought him stubborn enough to flaunt his papal ban, which would have led to his arrest. Such publicity may have suited Luther, but it didn't suit the Elector, for whom it would represent a blow against him by the Emperor. So he may have kept Luther in the dark about it. I think "discreetly intercepted" covers all the possibilities while remaining accurate. qp10qp (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"According to Luther"
The statement, "According to Luther, salvation is a gift of God, received only by true repentance and faith in Jesus as the Messiah, a faith given by God and unmediated by the church," is a misrepresentation of Luther. Luther never spoke like a "born-again" American Evangelical. The usage of the word "by" is rather misleading, as it implies that the person "do" something of their own power, rather, that repentance and faith are seen by Luther as a gift as well, the appropriate preposition would be "through." Also, following Luther's way of speaking, repentance follows faith and is a fruit of faith (as is obedience, love, charity, etc.). Furthermore, for Luther the Church was always integral to salvation as it is where the means of grace are. While technically the phrase "unmediated by the church" would fit Luther's theology, it is not reflective of the way Luther speaks as seen in his Large Catechism: "But outside of this Christian Church, where the Gospel is not found, there is no forgiveness, as also there can be no holiness."

A rephrasing of this phrase that is reflective of Luther's speech may be better stated: "According to Luther, salvation is a gracious gift of God received through faith. This faith is given by means of the external word in preaching and in Baptism."

I am open to other suggestions, but if we are going to say "According to Luther" it would be best if the language reflected that of Luther, and not of cliched American Evangelicalism or anti-Roman Catholicism.Mlorfeld (talk) 04:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with your general point. Coming to the subject from a historical point of view, I am always uneasy with churchspeak in this context. The first of your two alternative sentences above seems unexceptionable. The second is not self-explanatory to a general reader, in my opinion. What about: ""According to Luther, salvation is a gracious gift of God received through faith rather than through good works or religious pieties"? qp10qp (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Qp10ap - To a point, I agree. However, if one is going to say "According to Luther _fill in various theological topic here_" one cannot avoid church speak.  But I do see how my sentence may be too "churchy."  Maybe a direct quote would be better... Let the man speak for himself. Mlorfeld (talk) 03:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I edited the line you are discussing. You better review it to see if you like it or if you need to change it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * E. Thanks, it is an improvement. Mlorfeld (talk) 06:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Direct access to God and the opposition to the papacy
I removed this phrase ("direct access to God") because it would tend to mischaracterize Luther's theology of the means of grace. He believed that God came to human beings "mediately" through the Gospel and the sacraments. Luther also was more specifically opposed to the authority of the papacy. Using "power" which is virtually the same thing may give the wrong impression that he was concerned with reforms of a political nature. By removing the section "without the mediation of the church" the teaching about the general priesthood is left hanging. Luther opposed sacerdotalism, which was the belief that people could only be saved through a priesthood established through apostolic succession.--Drboisclair (talk) 00:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Monk
I'm not quite sure how this ever got started, but Martin Luther was never a monk. He was a Friar. Augustinians are friars, Benedictines and Cistercians are monks. There is a subtle difference, but one none the less and it's easily confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.123.105 (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Brecht/Nazis?
The article says: "Martin Brecht argues that there is a world of difference between Luther's belief in salvation, which depended on a faith in Jesus as the messiah &mdash; a belief Luther criticized the Jews for rejecting &mdash; and the Nazis' ideology of racial antisemitism." I think this gives a false impression. What Brecht actually says on the page cited is: "There is a world of difference between his belief in salvation and a racial ideology. Nevertheless, his misguided agitation had the evil result that Luther fatefully became one of the "church fathers" of anti-Semitism and thus provided material for the modern hatred of the Jews, cloaking it with the authority of the Reformer". In view of the fact that Brecht's argument reaches such a conclusion, I advocate either removing the sentence or giving his full meaning. I'm reluctant to change this delicate part of the article without first raising the matter here. qp10qp (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that since Brecht is the contemporary scholar and historian, who has done the most thorough work on Luther, the entire quotation should be restored. I agree that quoting just a part of it makes him say something else than what he is saying here. Please leave the quote in some form since Brecht is a comprehensive Luther authority.--Drboisclair (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure. I'll leave it a couple of days more and then do it, if no objections. qp10qp (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Now done. qp10qp (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

A-class/B-class
The previous edit moved the article rating from B-class to A-class. According to the Version 1.0 grading scheme: So far the projects call the article B-class. There is a clear POV-bent in the article, the best biographies are only lightly used, there is too much of a reliance on an old turn-of-the-century source (Schaff), and it reads like it has gone through several edit wars and needs prose improvement and copyedits. In my opinion, this article needs more work before it could be called "well-organized and essentially complete". I have placed it back to B-class. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been reviewed by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject or elsewhere.


 * Barely B-class! Or what about this:
 * (It was believed at the time that sudden cardiac arrest or stroke was a sign that Satan had taken a man's soul; Luther's companions stressed that he had gradually weakened and commended himself into God's hands.[114])
 * What foolish crap is this, to be in an encyclopedic article? Are we preaching this or that direction by alleging foul insinuations here and there? He certainly deserves blame for this and that, but that's implemented in an encyclopedic article by erecting a criticism section where the critics of him are collected and carefully cited. The quality of the religious articles suffers heavily for editors not acting according to wikipedia's principles. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 07:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * However, you have removed something cited to Oberman, who opens his book with an account of Luther's death in which he makes this point. I don't know enough to know whether he is correct, but it would explain why those at Luther's bedside were asking him if he intended to die confessing his reformed faith. Perhaps, in Oberman's reading, they were making sure he hadn't been taken by the devil at the last minute. I didn't add this material, but what may seem like "crap" to us may have seemed real in Luther's time. qp10qp (talk) 16:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The death of Martin Luther is actually historically important. Some were hoping to wipe out the Reformation at his death. Instead, dying was the last thing he did that supported the Reformation. Realize that a year after he died the war started and Lutheranism was not permitted after the Catholics invaded. Misinformation concerning his death was widespread soon after his death and circulated until the 1900s. The way he died is historically significant even today. I remember reading a special interest feature in the "Lutheran Witness" about it a year or two ago.--192.160.64.49 (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction?
"...marriage. Between bearing six children, Katharina, whose judgement Luther respected, helped earn the couple a living by farming the land and taking in boarders.[63] Luther confided to Stiefel on 11 August, 1526: "Catharina, my dear rib ... is, thanks to God, gentle, obedient, compliant in all things, beyond my hopes. I would not exchange my poverty for the wealth of Croesus."[62]

By the time of Katharina's death, the surviving of the five Luther children were adults..."

Does it mean there were five surviving children? or is the earlier paragraph wrong? I am not an expert, so someone who is one would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vizzydix1 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ooh, my, what a pudding of a paragraph. Since it's not referenced, I've removed it and am placing it below. Someone dolloped it into the article with no consideration of relevance, brevity, or readability (I find it indigestible). qp10qp (talk) 01:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Here goes:


 * By the time of Katharina's death, the surviving of the five Luther children were adults. Hans studied law and became a court advisor. Martin studied theology, but never had a regular pastoral call. Paul became a physician. He fathered six children, and the male line of the Luther family continued through him to John Ernest Luther, ending in 1759. Margaretha Luther, born in Wittenberg on 17 December, 1534, married into a noble and wealthy Prussian family, to Georg von Kunheim (Wehlau, 1 July, 1523 – Mühlhausen, 18 October, 1611, the son of Georg von Kunheim (1480 – 1543) and wife Margarethe, Truchsessin von Wetzhausen (1490 – 1527) but died in Mühlhausen in 1570 at the age of thirty-six. However, her descendants have continued to the present, and include President Paul von Hindenburg, the Counts zu Eulenburg, and Princes zu Eulenburg und Hertefeld.


 * And I agree that the paragraph does muddy the waters about the number of Luther's children. He had six: two of the daughters—Elisabeth and Magdalene—died young, and the other four were as above: Hans, Martin, Paul, and Margaret. I don't myself believe the article needs to go into detail about them. qp10qp (talk) 01:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * But I've added the detail that two children died in childhood. qp10qp (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The subject of Luther's children is an ongoing process of debate & discovery. I re-added much of the paragraph you deleted and added some new info with citations. If you think it is too wordy, remove the stuff in and reference to the the Counts zu Eulenburg, and Princes zu Eulenburg und Hertefeld. Please don't remove the referenced material that I have added. As the 500 year anniversary comes up, we will see Luther descendants on TV to talk about him, so it is significant that we keep them added.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have removed it because its inclusion is not justified by the proportionate mention of these children in Luther biographies (I have checked several). I am sorry to say that the information is also wrong. qp10qp (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * However, Luther descendants are featured on the news and in periodicals when major Luther anniversaries come up. The next major one will be in 2017, which is the 500 year anniversary of the 95 thesis. This is an encyclopedia, not a biography. Cross reference the Luther Alexander Gotwald and article for an example of an article with substantially more geological information. The information I had from my own sources is not wrong: It was previously believed that Luther's male lineage died out, but now there is good evidence that this is not the case. This was an significant scholarly/media controversy in the 1980s. Since there are different figures for the number of Luther descendants (one site I visited listed only 7900 descendants from his last two children.) I am re-adding the stuff I found from my own sources, abridged to conserve space.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have checked this in several sources and quite clearly Luther did not have five children who survived to adulthood. Please do not readd inaccurate information to the article which has twice been removed. qp10qp (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Philip of Hesse
The passage on the above is toned down to such an extent that it is untrue.


 * You are absolutely right. I've rewritten the section, with refs, stating the facts of the matter. qp10qp (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * For additional reference, below is an English translation (along with the original Latin) of the letter Luther sent to the Landgrave Philip of Hesse (December 10, 1539) granting him permission to have more than one wife. It's addressed as follows:


 * “To the most Serene Prince and Lord, Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, Count in Catzenelnbogen, Diez, Ziegenhayn, Nidda and Schauenburg, our most gracious Lord." The letter bears the signature of Luther and seven others. Delta x (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Reference needed
I notice that the following has a "citation-needed" tag:

Since the 1980s, Lutheran Church denominations have repudiated Martin Luther's antisemitic views.

Could someone ref this please? (I'm not familiar with Lutheranism post-16th century.) I'm sure this statement is correct, but it needs reffing, and with regard to all the different branches of Lutheranism that now exist, which I presume made their statements separately. Otherwise it will have to go, and that would be a shame. qp10qp (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Epiphyllumlover has usefully cited the Missouri Synod statement for the following sentence, meeting this long-standing citation request (not mine). Could anyone possibly reinforce this reference with a citation to statements of other denominations? Otherwise this will have to be reworded to refer only to the repudiation by the Missouri Synod. It seems to me essential to have this powerful sentence referring to Lutheranism as a whole.


 * Since the 1980s, Lutheran Church denominations have repudiated Martin Luther's statements against the Jews and have rejected the use of them to incite hatred against Lutherans.


 * I have asked also at the Lutheran project. qp10qp (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Why can't I edit the page?
I want to change the to first sentence thing section from: "This article is about the theologian" to "This article is about the German monk, theologian and father of Protestantism" but I cannot change - there is no edit tab? Is Wikipedia broken today? I have been able to edit on other days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.150.255.75 (talk) 02:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The page is semi-protected. You need to register for an account and then you'll be able to edit the article in, I think, three days. Cla68 (talk) 03:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

L's views re science
Martin Luther reportedly once said:
 * "There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must . . . invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth."

This was reported in the context of dinner-table conversation and not a formal statement of faith. However, by making scripture the primary source of "truth", the stage is set for opposition to any scientific investigations that conflict with the Bible. Is any of this dealt with in the article? Luther & Copernicus were contemporaries, and the Protestant Reformation & the Copernican Revolution both helped weaken the hold of the Catholic Church on humanity and contributed to the Scientific Revolution--JimWae (talk) 04:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think, certainly, that the article needs to note that Luther was essentially a medieval thinker, who held very primitive views on many issues. I have some sources for that, but could you give me a ref for the above so that I can look it up? We need a secondary source quoting this, because we cannot quote directly from Luther without the red light from an intervening commentator. qp10qp (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If you care to dig deep enough, you will find that Luther supported the co-existence of Copernicians & Aristotlians at the Wittenburg University. For a time, Wittenburg became an academic leader in Copernician astronomy partly through Luther's influence at a time when Catholic universities banned it. Luther himself was an Aristotlian in cosmology because that he was taught that way and didn't personally think he needed to innovate on that. Also keep in mind the Copernician system was new at the time and only about 90% accurate in describing the celestial movements.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 08:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The Copernican system was not new at the time. Pythagoras used a similar system
 * much earlier, as Galileo pointed out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.186.6 (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed the new last section "Present day Descendants"
Epiphyllumlover, I removed your new section (below):

''Thousands of people alive today are able trace their lineage back to Luther through Hans (Johannes), Paul, and Margaretha. Although most of his progeny live in Thuringia, Saxony, his descendants are also found elsewhere in Germany and in Algeria, Australia, Austria, Belgium, the East Indies, England, France, Holland, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, the United States (especially the Upper Midwest), and Zimbabwe.

This is too trivial and incidental to go on the article. The majority of historical figures also have many descendants and it not worthy of note in their articles. This may be of interest to the readers of the Lutheran journals cited, but not to non-Lutherans. It is not seen to be worth mentioning in the books on Luther that I have checked, including some very recent ones. All the less reason for it to be mentioned in this small article. You have not cited the material to broader academic publications.

May I say that your many other edits show care for the article's improvement, which is much needed. But in this case I feel that your added material is misjudged. Additions need to earn their place through the significance and weight of information in the scholarly literature, of which there is an enormous amount.qp10qp (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't some sort of "Lutheran interest only" thing (although even if it was that would NOT be a reason to exclude it from the article). I cited it with Lutheran sources because that is all I had from the 80's (the last significant Luther Anniversary). I think more of them are United Church of Christ instead of ELCA because of the Union Church in Germany at the time they immigrated. It has been too long since a significant Luther anniversary to prove to you my claim about how they crop up in the media at that time. But here are some media articles that feature them: This article is from UPI. This article is from the Boston Globe.


 * Scholarly literature does not have a monopoly in Wikipedia--a diversity of sources is acceptable. There was an academic debate over the male line descendants in the '80s. I have tried to read one article discussing it, but I found it incomprehensible due to the German-ish English and my total unfamiliarity with all the sources it was citing.


 * I am re-adding it on the basis of the two news articles I turned up.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 08:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This material is simply trivia. The same can be said of virtually any figure from that time "they have thousands of descendants" - it is not particular to Luther and tells the reader nothing. That many people are named after him is remarkable, but this is not. When things are unremarkable, we should not remark on them. The material should be removed. The source's trustworthiness is irrelevant, the fact that some source tells us that George Bush likes strawberry icecream does not mean we put it in an ex-president's biography, even if the source is the New York Times. I suggest moving this information to article on Thuringia - where it just might be significant. --Scott Mac (Doc) 09:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Adding newspaper cites doesn't make any difference. The Luther article should reference scholarly sources. In fact, this has made things worse, because it seems that this stuff is based on newspaper research not scholarly research. My point is, however, not that the information is untrue but that it is incidental and trivial. qp10qp (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Qp, I agree with you, the article will never make GA or FA unless it sticks to scholarly sources.  <font color="#E75480">Nancy <font color="#960018">Heise  ''' <font color="#F6ADC6">talk 22:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, many historical figures have no living descendants today, for example, John Calvin. This is a notable part of their legacy. Since I am away from any scholarly library now, I am unable to dig for the references you desire. I think Brecht mentions his offspring, but I only own one of his three volumes. The discovery of living male descendants of Luther was by no means a trivial incident.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed section "Recent trends in research"
I have removed the following section, which never used to be in the article. To anyone who doesn't know anything about the subject, it may appear plausible. But (given that we know what "recent" is supposed to mean here, since 50s material is included), it seems to me an unfocused collection of information that doesn't reflect recent broad trends in Luther scholarship in the slightest. I don't think we should have a section like this in the article, because to compile it is to make original research decisions about what is significant. Certainly, I think there should be a legacy section, as well as a theology section, and I hope these will materialise with time. qp10qp (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

"Recent trends in research": Modern Luther scholarship has presented a more diverse view of Luther. Research lead by Tuomo Mannermaa at the University of Helsinki has led to the development of the "The New Finnish Interpretation of Luther" that presents Luther's views on salvation in terms much closer to the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of theosis rather than established interpretations of German Luther scholarship. This research has recently been presented in English in an anthology of papers edited by Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson in a work entitled, Union with Christ: The New Finnish Interpretation of Luther. Mannermaa states, "the external impulse for this new wave of Luther studies in Helsinki came surprisingly from outside the boundaries of Luther research. It came from the ecumenical dialogue between the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland and the Russian Orthodox Church that was initiated by Archbishop Martti Simojoki at the beginning of the nineteen-seventies." This research has been called into question because it ignores Luther's roots and theological development in Western Christendom, and it characterizes Luther's teaching on Justification as based on Jesus's righteousness which indwells the believer rather than Jesus's righteousness as imputed to the believer.

Beginning in 1955, a new English translation of Luther's major works was carried out as a joint venture of Concordia Publishing House and Fortress, now Augsburg Fortress Press. Known as the "American Edition of Luther's Works," it has led to the rediscovery of some of Luther's most controversial writings, and a more complete picture has emerged of this prolific writer and his complex personality.

The "American Edition" translation of On the Jews and Their Lies in 1971, possibly the first complete English version, revealed to many readers a side of Luther they had not previously known. Another of Luther's works, Vom Schem Hamphoras, was translated and published independently as part of The Jew In Christian Theology by Gerhard Falk in 1992. Luther's Vom Schem Hamphoras continues his graphic and polemical satire against and his castigation of the Jews, but it does not exceed the violently graphic and religiously zealous anti-Jewish diatribe of On the Jews and Their Lies.

Against Hanswurst (1541) was also translated as part of the "American Edition" and is described as "rivaling his anti-Jewish treatises for vulgarity and violence of expression."


 * Good idea. I previously deleted part of this section months ago. The rest of it is also not useful.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There should be a section that speaks about his works, the Weimar Edition and the American Edition. Of course the bibliography would be too lengthy; however, you need to have something in the article that his collected works run to over 100 volumes. With any scholar of Luther's accomplishments you need to direct the attention of the reader to his works.--Drboisclair (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You could have a section entitled "Collected Works," which speaks about the Wittenberg edition, the Erlangen Edition, the Walch Edition, the Weimar Edition, and the American Edition of Luther's works. A short bibliography of his major writings should also be appended.--Drboisclair (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose that the colapsable template at the bottom of the article could serve as a bibliography of his writings, but it only contains titles that are subject of articles in Wikipedia.--Drboisclair (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the solution will come eventually with a legacy section, which would cover the editions of his work, though the prospect of trying to write such a section myself daunts me so far. I also think the time is coming when the article should have shortened footnotes, with an alphabetical list of references below. I have this on my list, because the current note format isn't user friendly. This change would solve the listing problem at a stroke, as we could divide the references into primary and secondary sources, starting with a list of referenced editions of Luther's work. And we could insert a selected list of his original writings above. For an example of how this might look, see Mary Wollstonecraft.


 * For the time being, I've tentatively started a list of publications of Luther's writings under "Further reading". There are some dangers in this, since we can't build such a list on personal opinions of significance, which is why the three I've listed so far are ones I've seen specifically recommended in Mullett and the Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther. If someone has an annotated bibliography of publications of Luther's writings, they might use that to add to the list (or to create a paragraph on "Collected Works"), but, of course, it should not become too long, since the sources page acts as a "main" article for the list. qp10qp (talk) 17:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * See Martin Luther (resources) before you repeat too much work on this.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is there. In a sense it counts as the main page for what would be a small listing here. It's not kept up with this page recently, though, and omits many works referenced on this page.qp10qp (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

List of writings?
For so many others, a list of writings is posted in the article. Why not for Luther, one of the most prolific writers of his time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.208.218 (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Martin Luther isn't anti-Catholic
Just because he did try to reform the Catholic Church doesn't mean he's anti-Catholic. He never intended to be that way at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanejwb (talk • contribs) 15:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think calling Luther just a reformer would really understate his message and his impacts. I would agree that he certainly began as a reformer, but from 1520 onward his message went beyond reform because it fundamentally challenged the basis for the Catholic Church (notably the role of the pope)


 * I think this depends on how 'Catholic' is defined. If it is taken to mean the contemporary Catholic Church then he probably can be labelled 'anti-Catholic'.  If it is taken to mean the precepts and beliefs of the Catholic church (as was or as is), then it's much harder to say. -- Odd bloke (talk) 02:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the brightest way to approach this would be to not use the term "Catholic", which properly refers to the "Universal" Church and replace it with "Roman". Luther certainly wan't anti-Catholic, since that would mean, effectively, anti-church. But he did take a stand against the Roman Church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.55.228.52 (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

timeline is confusing.
Hi

The following section in the current does not flow chronologically. It says "Finally on 30 May 1519", but then later says Luther went to Augsberg in ... in 1518.

Quote: Finally on 30 May, 1519, when the Pope demanded an explanation, Luther wrote a summary and explanation of his theses to the Pope. While the Pope may have conceded some of the points, he did not like the challenge to his authority so he summoned Luther to Rome to answer these. At that point Frederick the Wise, the Saxon Elector, intervened. He did not want one of his subjects to be sent to Rome to be judged by the Catholic clergy so he prevailed on the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, who needed Frederick's support, to arrange a compromise.

An arrangement was effected, however, whereby that summons was cancelled, and Luther went to Augsburg in October 1518 to meet the papal legate, Cardinal Thomas Cajetan. The argument was long but nothing was resolved.

End quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.25.58 (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There is also a timeline issue earlier in the article. In the section under "Monastic and Academic Life" the statement is made that Luther moved to Wittenburg in 1512: "On 19 October 1512, [Luther] was awarded his Doctor of Theology and, on 21 October 1512, was received into the senate of the theological faculty of the University of Wittenberg, having been called to the position of Doctor in Bible." However, in the next section under "The start of the Reformation" the claim is made that Luther didn't move to Wittenburg until 1518: "Some scholars have questioned Melanchthon's account, since [Luther] did not move to Wittenberg until a year later...." Spiritquest (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Nazi mention in intro
Is this actually important enough to be in the introduction? Luther's disregard for the Jews remains controversial, especially after his polemics on European Jewry were used in propaganda by the Nazi Party. I say no, but I guess it is controversial so say what you think before I remove it. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't be removed because it is one of the key issues concerning Luther. There has been plenty written about it, as the section on the issue shows. qp10qp (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's fairly clear that his life's work was not about anti-semitism. The fact that the Nazis used some of his writings especially doesn't need to be mentioned in the intro.  Luther has no connection to the Nazis, they came long after he passed on. Cla68 (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) It seems fairest to keep the sentence in the lead. I looked at the section of the article about Luther and the Jews, and the fact that his writings were used to justify anti-Semitic acts of enormous historical importance is a legitimate subject for the article. The section seems nuanced, noting the differences between Luther and the Nazis. It's standard for Wikipedia articles to note the influence that the subject of an article has on others, even after a subject's death. The lead is supposed to summarize the rest of the article, so a sentence in the lead doesn't seem to be out of place. -- Noroton (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If Luther's writings were a major cause of the formation and rise of Nazism, then it might be ok to mention that in the intro. His views, however, appear to be one of many historical opinions used by the Nazis and therefore, there is no direct connection.  The section on the anti-Semitic views is rather large, so mention of that in the lede is probably ok. Cla68 (talk) 00:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I wrote this to respond to your first comment, but I'll put it here: But there does seem to be a connection with the Nazis, according to what's said in the section about Luther and the Jews. Certainly, it's not good to have an emotional hot potato in the lead, but it's justified if Luther's own actions actually did help create that hot potato. Look at the most relevant passage of that section:


 * His main works on the Jews were his 60,000-word treatise Von den Juden und Ihren Lügen (On the Jews and Their Lies), and Vom Schem Hamphoras und vom Geschlecht Christi (On the Holy Name and the Lineage of Christ) — reprinted five times within his lifetime — both written in 1543, three years before his death.[101] He argued that the Jews were no longer the chosen people, but were "the devil's people." They were "base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth."[102] The synagogue was a "defiled bride, yes, an incorrigible whore and an evil slut ..."[103] and Jews were full of the "devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine."[104] He advocated setting synagogues on fire, destroying Jewish prayerbooks, forbidding rabbis from preaching, seizing Jews' property and money, smashing up their homes, and ensuring that these "poisonous envenomed worms" be forced into labor or expelled "for all time."[105] He also seemed to sanction their murder,[106] writing "We are at fault in not slaying them."[107]
 * Although Nazi ideology was different from Luther's, including anti-semitic stances, that last quote seems to show the Nazis had reason to use Luther in their propaganda. It's justifiable to point that out in the article, and important enough to mention in the lead. -- Noroton (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Responding specifically to your 00:23 post, the statement in the lead only said that Luther's views were used in Nazi propaganda, which is shown in the section, not that he helped form Nazi ideology, which hasn't been shown. -- Noroton (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As Doc explains better than I could below, his views on anti-Semitism appear to be notable, but it's more casual coincidence the Nazi connection. Cla68 (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I support its removal. The Nazis also used Darwin, and quoted Jesus. These are important things to mention in articles about Nazism - and indeed merit mention in Luther's article (which they get at length). But that Nazis quoted him is not significant in the same ways as his impact on Lutherism, Protestantism and the development of Northern Europe - it does not belong in the same breath in the Lead. He is largely the originator of a whole host of ideas, practices and theologies and for the shaping of European politics. His (conservative) response to social questions also has huge impact. Being quoted by Nazis just isn't up there. Sure Luther held views on Judaism that are anti-Judaistic, but those ideas are older than Luther, and Hitler would have been Hitler regardless. The lead should stick to the immense amount of things for which there is an agreed causal connection.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm no Luther scholar, but the Luther & Jews section of the article makes the case that Luther was influential in Germany, and his example was influential in the 20th century. I hate to quote a huge passage, but this is worth reading and rereading:
 * Luther successfully campaigned against the Jews in Saxony, Brandenburg, and Silesia. Josel of Rosheim (1480-1554), who tried to help the Jews of Saxony, wrote in his memoir that their situation was "due to that priest whose name was Martin Luther — may his body and soul be bound up in hell!! — who wrote and issued many heretical books in which he said that whoever would help the Jews was doomed to perdition."[110] Michael writes that Josel asked the city of Strasbourg to forbid the sale of Luther's anti-Jewish works; they refused initially, but relented when a Lutheran pastor in Hochfelden argued in a sermon that his parishioners should murder Jews.[111] Luther's influence persisted after his death. Throughout the 1580s, riots saw the expulsion of Jews from several German Lutheran states.[111][112]


 * According to Michael, Luther's work acquired the status of Scripture within Germany, and he became the most widely read author of his generation, in part because of the coarse and passionate nature of the writing.[111] The prevailing view[113] among historians is that his anti-Jewish rhetoric contributed significantly to the development of antisemitism in Germany,[114] and in the 1930s and 1940s provided an ideal foundation for the National Socialist's attacks on Jews.[115] Reinhold Lewin writes that "whoever wrote against the Jews for whatever reason believed he had the right to justify himself by triumphantly referring to Luther." According to Michael, just about every anti-Jewish book printed in the Third Reich contained references to and quotations from Luther. Heinrich Himmler wrote admiringly of his writings and sermons on the Jews in 1940.[116] The city of Nuremberg presented a first edition of On the Jews and their Lies to Julius Streicher, editor of the Nazi newspaper Der Stürmer, on his birthday in 1937; the newspaper described it as the most radically anti-Semitic tract ever published.[117] On 17 December, 1941, seven Protestant regional church confederations issued a statement agreeing with the policy of forcing Jews to wear the yellow badge, "since after his bitter experience Luther had already suggested preventive measures against the Jews and their expulsion from German territory."


 * This seems to show that Luther was particularly influential in helping the Nazi's justify the holocaust in Germany -- which could be wrong, but it's the evidence I see. (The first paragraph in the quote seems to show that interpreting Luther as calling for persecution and even killing of Jews is a pretty strong claim, so the Nazi's weren't alone in this and their use of his writings could be particularly effective.) The Holocaust was so important that if Luther's writings were an important element in getting German support for Nazi persecution of the Jews, it seems like something important enough to mention in the lead. I don't think Luther's many important influences completely crowd this out.
 * Mention of this does seem to take up quite a bit of space in the lead, and it can probably be shortened a bit. -- Noroton (talk) 00:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change
I suggest changing the sentence from: "Much scholarly debate has concentrated on Luther's writings about the Jews. His statements that Jews' homes should be destroyed, their synagogues burned, money confiscated and liberty curtailed were revived and used in propaganda by the Nazis in 1933–45.[13] As a result of this and his revolutionary theological views, his legacy remains controversial.[14]" to "Much scholarly debate has concentrated on Luther's writings about the Jews and his statements that Jews' homes should be destroyed, their synagogues burned, money confiscated and liberty curtailed." Cla68 (talk) 00:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that's a good change. Having this in the lead at all seems undue weight to me. Strikes me that in general we should not be trying to exhaustively list the outbound influences that someone may have had. Instead we should list the inbound influences, they're easier to show and more important. ++Lar: t/c 01:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Cla, the only trouble with reducing the paragraph is that, in my opinion, diminution will lead to disappearance. Increased elegance is good, though. By the time of the edit before yours, this issue had evaporated to one short sentence in the lead, with the substance in the footnote. And mealy expressions like "negative writing" or "disregard" were by then being used, making readers quite understandably want to cut the sentence as flimsy or superficial.


 * In reply to Lar, I think our undue weight guidelines fall down in this article, as the many previous disputes over this have shown. To Jewish historians, this issue is of more interest than Luther's life or theology. What the weight of the treatment should be depends on what angle you look at the issue from. Luther's biographer Heiko Oberman put it this way: "The Third Reich and in its wake the whole western world capitalized upon Luther, the fierce Jew-baiter. Any attempt to deal with the Reformer runs up against this obstacle. No description of Luther's campaign against the Jews, however erudite and objective it may be, escapes the horror: we live in the post-Holocaust era". qp10qp (talk) 02:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The section on his anti-semitic writing is long enough that I think you can continue to justify a mention of it, no matter how brief the sentence in the intro. Otherwise, so far I think a slight majority here favor removing the Nazi reference.  Perhaps we'll wait another day or two to see if anyone else wants to weigh in. Cla68 (talk) 03:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If I may chime in, the Nazi connection should not be removed from the lead. Martin Luther's antisemitism is a major point of focus in Holocaust studies analyzing the basis for Nazism. --Anewpester (talk) 04:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Outside view here: Luther's legacy is obviously important in an article about Luther, and the Nazis' use of his anti-Semitism is unfortunately a part of his legacy. The article contains a good-sized and well-referenced section on Luther's anti-Semitism and the way it has affected his legacy, and I don't think anyone wants that section of the article omitted. The lead of an article is supposed to fairly sum up the material throughout the article, not just some sections of it. Therefore a mention is clearly appropriate in the lead. (This part of the lead is much better-written and better-sourced than it was before this discussion began, though, so this debate has obviously done some good.) All the best, – Quadell (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * His writing about Jews is one out of 21 sections of the article, but take up a fifth of the intro. A large part of the article is about events in his personal life, but this is barely mentioned in the intro. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In article space, his "legacy" in terms of anti-Semitism takes up about 1/8 of the article. I don't think it is over-represented in the lead. Also, you don't seem to be arguing that the section mentioning his association with Nazism be given proportionate length in the lead; you seem to be arguing that it be removed entirely from the lead. – Quadell (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The antisemitism section of the lead is really pretty short already. The problem with it in the lead is really that the rest of the lead is too brief, with five very short paragraphs. If the paragraphs were more detailed and descriptive of the article, the antisemitism part would pretty much conform to the weight it has in the article as a whole. A little rewording could shorten that passage in the lead, but I think the Nazi use of Luther's writings is unavoidable because it's simply important. -- Noroton (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Another outside view: Lead sections are meant to summarize articles, and a prominent section of the article deals with his antisemitic views and the Nazi connection, so there's no reason to exclude it in the lead. This is strictly from a style point of view. From the NPOV point of view, we can also surmise that mention of these facts belong in the lead section, because it's due weight as Luther is very well-known for his antisemitism, and he is also well-known for the Nazi connection. These things are in fact more well-known than most things in this article. There's no reason not to include mention in the lead section, in summary style. --Ynhockey (Talk) 14:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that Martin Luther is mostly known for antisemitism and nazi connection? --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Now where did I say that? --Ynhockey (Talk) 15:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, what are you saying then? Thanks for clarifying because at first glance that's kinda how it read to me. Please elaborate. ++Lar: t/c 02:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know if a lead can ever be a proportionate distillation of an article: in practice, it tends to be a summary of the main points and most notable issues. Even if on some proportionate basis the mention of antisemitism in the lead were to be made very short, it should still, in my view, mention the Nazis because the relation between the Nazis and the Lutherans was a key phenomenon in the history of German Lutheranism. (I should explain here that in my opinion an article about Luther must also be an article about the influence and effect of his ideas. It is, of course, not Luther's responsibility what the Nazis made of his legacy, and the article does not confuse the sixteenth- and the twentieth-century contexts.)


 * For those who don't know what happened, here is an extract from Gritsch's History of Lutheranism: "Nazi-oriented Lutherans, known as 'German Christians' (deutche Christen), supported the ideology of the Nazi party, contending that the new Germany would be inspired by a 'Luther spirit' (Luthergeist) that would unite all racially pure Germans. The German Christians called for the organization of a 'church of the realm' (Reichskirke), headed by a bishop appointed by Hitler and combining the twenty-eight Protestant territorial churches of Germany. In a document titled 'Platform' (1932), they applauded Hitler for reviving 'heroic piety' linked to Martin Luther; agreed with the policy against 'racial mixing', especially concerning relations with Jews; called for a revival of 'inner mission' as a protection of Germany from 'the incapable and inferior'; and desired an 'evangelical church' rooted in nationalism rather than cosmopolitanism. The platform viewed its program as the fulfilment of the intentions of the Reformation of the sixteenth century."


 * I'd find it hard to take the word Nazi out of the lead because Lutheran antisemitism went beyond the general under the Nazis and found an outlet in a specific policy. The Nazi period was a crucial stage in the evolution of Lutheran ideas in Germany. Lutheran churchgoers—though it would be wrong to say that they envisaged holocaust, which was not a part of Lutheran teaching—were used to the idea of removing Jews from their homes and property because that policy was embedded in the teaching of Luther and in their catechisms. This is the linking point between Martin Luther and the policies of the Nazis towards the Jews, as carried out in such events as Kristallnacht, which was applauded by leading Lutherans as fulfilling Luther's doctrine. qp10qp (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In a word: Rubbish. The co-location of German Lutherian thought with Nazism is a product of the co-location of Nazism and Germany.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Of course Luther was an anti-semite.  It would have been notable, in that period, if he wasn't of a mind with the racist and xenophobic majority of the time.
 * The Nazis co-opted many ideas, they stole and incorporated many ideals, corrupting them in the process. To claim that their appropriation of ideals taints the origin of those ideals is, to put it frankly, grossly unfair and a fringe POV at best. The day that a join between Martin Luther and Nazi Germany belongs in the lead of any reasonable biographical article on Luther is the day you lot put a reference to Jihad in the LEAD of the article on Islam, or a comment on the twin towers in the LEAD of the article on Muhammad.  Although, to be perfectly honest, it would not surprise this contributor if some of the names (not qp10qp, of course) on this page would do exactly that.
 * If the American POV is so strong that you absolutely must mention the completely non-notable instance of an anti-semitic individual in that era, then do so, but ffs... Nazis? Get a grip.58.108.75.46 (talk) 02:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The points you make that are relevent have already been refuted. The first paragraph I quoted above at 00:59, 21 April refutes the first paragraph of your comment: Apparently Josel of Rosheim and the 16th-century government of Strassburg disagree with you. Co-location as a reason for historical influence is irrelevant; what's relevant is that the influence occurred. If the article correctly presents what Luther wrote about the Jews, then it wasn't an "ideal" that the Nazi's "corrupted" but a strain of his thought they only had to channel. Contest the facts if you want, but if the article has correctly presented the facts, the lead should reflect that presentation. -- Noroton (talk) 11:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * To IP 58.108.75.46: You are welcome to disagree with my view, but I'm not American (or Jewish or a Lutheran). qp10qp (talk) 11:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with removal from the introduction, it seems like an anachronism to me. To tackle this idea within a Nazi ideology article seems fine, but the other way around just seems odd. Fixerofthingsthatarenotquiteright (talk) 00:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not an anachronism to say that Luther's views on the Jews were revived by the Nazis. It would be an anachronism to say that Luther was responsible for the use of his ideas made by the Nazis. qp10qp (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The lead makes little sense
Much scholarly debate has concentrated on Luther's writings about the Jews

Fine. But "much" looks a bit slippery (how much?) and "has concentrated on" needs expansion - which one would expect in the following sentence.

His statements that Jews' homes should be destroyed, their synagogues burned, money confiscated and liberty curtailed were revived and used in propaganda by the Nazis in 1933–45.[13]

How does this follow from the first sentence? What does it tell us about "scholarly views"? Logically it implies that the Nazis are the scholars?

As a result of this and his revolutionary theological views, his legacy remains controversial.[14]

As a result of what? His statements, the Nazis use of them, or the scholarly debate?

Can I suggest we leave the "scollars" out of this and simply say:

''In his writings, Luther stated that Jewish homes should be destroyed, their synagogues burned, money confiscated and liberty curtailed. Such statements, later re-used in Nazi propaganda, have added to controversies surrounding Luther's legacy.''

--Scott Mac (Doc) 08:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like an improvement. -- Noroton (talk) 10:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. I should say here that I didn't write any of the lead. The whole lead plus the organisation, along with several parts, of the article itself need work, without doubt. It's impossible to quantify how much scholarly debate has taken place on this point, since Luther studies are so vast, but the bibliographies list much material on the issue, and, of course, Jewish historians concentrate on it when writing about Luther. There is plenty on it in the books about Luther that I own (a fair number, though largely biographical and historical rather than theological). But Scott's suggestion to lose the words "much scholarly debate" seems fine (so long as people who want the mention of the Nazis removed will be prepared to check out the section where various scholars are quoted). qp10qp (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I revised the section in the heading that you are talking about. I'm keeping the Natzi reference--and I think it should be either kept or replaced with a more specific to the German Christians section of the Natzi movement. If you don't like my revision, then feel free to complain to me here.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with your rewording, which now reads: "Although Luther's call for the Jews to be relocated to Jerusalem following the destruction of their homes and synagogues, restriction of their liberty, and redistribution of their interest earnings was forgotten for centuries after his death, they were republished for Nazi propaganda purposes from 1933–45". I do not find all this in the two citations to McKim and Berenbaum. This goes to show the problems of changing wordings without changing references. McKim actually says: "Such writings were given full publicity by the National Socialists in 1933–45". This is slightly different from saying that they republished them. Neither source says that the ideas were forgotten. In fact, my understanding is that Luther's anti-Jewish policy was embedded in the catechisms; it was also revived in the 19th and 20th century. So, as we stand now, the sentence is both inaccurate and inaccurately cited. I find that when the article is attacked for this part of the lead, or when this part is removed, it is always when a muddled version of it is in place. The key is to make the sentence hard and strong, with no "althoughs", "howevers", or other attempts to water it down. qp10qp (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Or get rid of it entirely, unless a properly balanced version of it can be constructed. As has been pointed out above, there is a potential undue weight problem here, as well as a synthesis problem. ++Lar: t/c 14:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There's not a due weight problem because there is so much scholarship on the matter. If you are making a fractional estimate of the sentence's appropriate length in relation to the section in the article, then perhaps it should have fewer words, but the sentence cannot be removed entirely, as you suggest, because that would result in no weight at all. qp10qp (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Lar, how do you advance the cause of proper weight when the article states (1) that Luther called for Jews to be killed, (2) Luther was influential, (3) Jews were killed in the period shortly after Luther's death, by people who apparently were reading Luther; (4) his writings continued to be influential, and were often referred to in Nazi propaganda. All that constitutes weight, and quite a bit of weight. How is this unreasonable? Here's the passage of the article I'm referring to. It seems pretty straightforward:
 * ''He also seemed to sanction their murder,[108] writing "We are at fault in not slaying them."[109]
 * ''Luther successfully campaigned against the Jews in Saxony, Brandenburg, and Silesia. Josel of Rosheim (1480-1554), who tried to help the Jews of Saxony, wrote in his memoir that their situation was "due to that priest whose name was Martin Luther — may his body and soul be bound up in hell!! — who wrote and issued many heretical books in which he said that whoever would help the Jews was doomed to perdition."[110] Michael writes that Josel asked the city of Strasbourg to forbid the sale of Luther's anti-Jewish works; they refused initially, but relented when a Lutheran pastor in Hochfelden argued in a sermon that his parishioners should murder Jews.[111] Luther's influence persisted after his death. Throughout the 1580s, riots saw the expulsion of Jews from several German Lutheran states.[111][112]
 * ''According to Michael, Luther's work acquired the status of Scripture within Germany, and he became the most widely read author of his generation, in part because of the coarse and passionate nature of the writing.[111] The prevailing view[113] among historians is that his anti-Jewish rhetoric contributed significantly to the development of antisemitism in Germany,[114] and in the 1930s and 1940s provided an ideal foundation for the National Socialist's attacks on Jews.[115] Reinhold Lewin writes that "whoever wrote against the Jews for whatever reason believed he had the right to justify himself by triumphantly referring to Luther." According to Michael, just about every anti-Jewish book printed in the Third Reich contained references to and quotations from Luther.
 * An NPOV article would reflect this important aspect of the subject in the lead, including the advocacy of "slaying them." The way to reduce that weight is by citing other scholarship or showing how the sources already used in the article are wrong, isn't it? Again, I'm no expert, and if better sources are found that counter this, my mind could easily be changed. -- Noroton (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The final paragraph of the lead was changed on May 6, making it somewhat inaccurate, as discussed above, so I've restored the old version, which was previously restored in April by Qp10qp.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 09:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It is my suggestion that anyone working on anything with Martin Luther and Jews should sit down and read his Jews and their Lies instead of only reading scholarly regurgitations of it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to make it easier, here's a link. Scroll down to the end of section 10 for the "We are at fault in not slaying them." line, to see it in context. It takes a strong stomach to read this hateful stuff, and I haven't gone through the whole thing. Section 11 has Luther's policy suggestions on how to treat Jews, and it doesn't include killing them. Do we need to adjust the language of the WP article to reflect that? -- Noroton (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Horrendous though his recommendations were concerning the Jews, he did not sanction their murder, and I have always been uncomfortable with the phrase in the article "He also seemed to sanction their murder". This is cited to Michael, whom I haven't read: but clearly "we are at fault in not slaying them" falls short of sanctioning their murder. I am not excusing Luther's anti-Jewish tracts in saying this, but attending to accuracy. An event like Kristallnacht is clearly related to Lutheran strictures on the Jews about turning them out of their homes and businesses and destroying their property, and it was explicitly seen as such at the time by those involved. But the holocaust cannot be imputed to Luther's legacy because Luther did not actually recommend killing the Jews: the phrase "we are at fault in not slaying them" is the nearest he ever comes. Certainly the Nazis were fuelled by Lutheran and indeed Christian attitudes towards the Jews, but they went that extra yard of their own accord. qp10qp (talk) 00:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Qp10qp, I think that you are overstating the case when you state here "fuelled by Lutheran and Christian attitudes toward the Jews." The fuel does not come from what we as Lutheran Christians or as Christians believe is true Lutheranism or true Christianity. It is wrong to lay the blame of Nazism or the holocaust on Christianity or Lutheranism. Its cause lay in demonic prejudices that are counter Christian and Lutheran. I think too that too much time is given to Robert Michael's POV. Simply repeating his views runs dangerously close to making the article NOT NPOV. I also think that we should leave the final paragraph of the lead as it is right now. It was arrived at after much deliberation. You have the evidence of this before you in the archived pages.--Drboisclair (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree on the last point. As you can see from my comment above, I do not agree with Robert Michael that "Luther seemed to sanction their murder", and in fact I think Michael's name should be brought into the text there to show that that is his interpretation, if the point is to be retained. I'm going to get hold of the book of his that the article cites (though that precise point is cited to an article I cannot get). I have the impression that Michael is saying that Christian and Lutheran attitudes towards the Jews encouraged anti-Judaism (and thereby antisemitism), and I think that point is broadly sustainable (in fact, it is not very radical, since all faiths contain at some level the idea that non-believers are not the equal of believers); but it's another thing to imply that Christianity, or Lutheranism, sanctioned the holocaust. In the same way, we cannot blame the Muslim faith for murders committed by particular Muslims or Muslim regimes. Even the Nazis—with the exception of the civilian Julius Streicher in his Nuremberg ranting—did not claim that the Final Solution was sanctioned by Luther's teaching. qp10qp (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Thank you for your response. I agree with you that it should be stated explicitly that it is Robert Michael who is of that opinion. I appreciate your tireless work on making this article NPOV and of the quality befitting Wikipedia.--Drboisclair (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Today I've been able to read Robert Michael's Holy Hatred: Christianity, Antisemitism, and the Holocaust, which is referenced several times in the "Antijudaism and antisemitism" section. As I anticipated (because I'm now familiar with Luther's texts on the Jews), I found Michael's attempt to show that Luther advocated mass murder of Jews very flimsy.


 * On p. 113, he states unequivocally: "Luther also urged mass murder of Jews". But the long quotation from On the Jews and their Lies that follows (the "burn the synagogues" passage) contains no evidence for such an assertion. Later Michael says, with some reason, that you can't burn synagogues, homes, etc. without some people being killed—agreed, but that is not the same as deliberately setting out to kill people. To be fair, Michael's general thesis, that the measures Luther recommended against the Jews were bound to spill over into killing and that the holocaust was an inevitable extension of the purging of the Jews from their homes and properties, makes good sense; but that doesn't mean that Luther advocated murder among the measures he proposed against the Jews.


 * Michael points to phrases of Luther's such as "pain of death" and "pain of loss of life and limb" as evidence that he advocated killing Jews. But the context is legal, just as it was when he advocated, in that case explicitly, the killing of peasants. He was asserting that in cases of lawbreaking, the guilty could expect the death penalty from the authorities—a stance that was not specific to the Jews. Michael quotes from On the Jews and their Lies, "If I had power over the Jews, as our princes and cities have, I would deal severely with their lying mouth ... For a usurer is an arch-thief and a robber who should rightly be hanged on the gallows seven times higher than other thieves". These words are specifically aimed at Jewish usurers, but again he is talking in terms of what he sees as crime and its legal punishment: he is not suggesting that Jews should be killed just for being Jews.


 * Michael also quotes the following: "deal harshly with them, as Moses did in the wilderness, slaying three thousand lest the whole people perish". Here, I am not convinced that Luther meant this literally. If Luther wanted mass killings, he would have said so directly. Of the lines "I cannot convert the Jews ... But I can stop up their mouths so that they will have to lie upon the ground", Michael says, "The language is ambiguous, but it implies a death threat. The imprecise language allowed people of goodwill to believe that outright murder was not being proposed, while at the same time this kind of language permitted them to speak about the unspeakable, the mass murder of the Jews". I disagree: if Luther wanted to recommend mass murder of the Jews he would have done so in plain language: it was not his style to mince his words in the sly way Michael suggests. Michael has as the lead quote of the relevant chapter: "We are at fault in not slaying them"; and later he says that this shows that "Luther clearly stated that all Jews should be murdered". In my opinion, the comment falls short of that, though it seems to me the closest Luther came to it.


 * I hope I'm not doing Michael a disservice in saying that the above examples comprise his main evidence for the finding that Luther "urged mass murder of Jews". As a respected scholar, he is entitled to his argument, and it stands in the article—but I have now made it clear that this is very much his view rather than a factual statement, as it seemed up till now. qp10qp (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for going through Michael's stuff. I remember scholarly reading criticism of Michael's views some years ago, but I've never read his works. I think he is a target for criticism by Lutherans because he goes out on a limb further than other historians discussing the Luther/Nazi connection. Several times I was told a brief background synopsis of Luther's negative encounters with the Jews from several Lutherans: 1. He learned Hebrew from them, and got to know at least one rabbi. 2. After he learned Hebrew, he read Jewish writings because he was interested in what they had to say about him and his preaching. Instead of finding reception of his teachings, he discovered that the Hebrew language was used by some Jews at the time to communicate openly about criminal activities without the German government or populace knowing about it because almost no one that wasn't a Jew knew Hebrew. 3. Luther became furious at the Jews because of his findings from #2. He wrote "Against the Jews and their Lies" because he was convinced that only law-abiding people deserve to live under the protection of the rulers at the time. The whole synagogue and home burning thing was supposed to be part of their forcible resettlement and was to be accompanied by providing Jews land to settle on in the Holy Land. His main argument was that the Jews were both being mistreated (by being forbidden to farm) and were mistreating others by living along with the Germans and that the solution to this was to exile the Jews. Reading "Jews and their Lies" myself, I have to say that Luther is not entirely coherent on what he wants to happen. He describes how to expel the Jews from Germany, but he also describes how the rulers are to encourage their conversion to Christianity. I don't think both are possible at the same time, especially given his view that those that convert are not to be expelled. Perhaps a good secondary source manages to reconcile the two and describe what Luther really was trying to say?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it is not coherent at all, and to me it sounds like ranting. In my mind, I picture Luther scratching away rapidly with his quill, correcting nothing. "We are at fault in not slaying them" just bursts out. If Luther had a policy that the Jews should be mass murdered, he would have set it out in detail, I'm sure. I don't think it occurred to him. qp10qp (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There are two issues here -- first, what Luther might have meant if he wasn't, in fact, extolling the virtues of killing Jews; and secondly, that what he intended is actually irrelevant. What matters for the purpose of examining his legacy is what his readers, then and much later, took him to mean. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 05:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it was understood that Kristallnacht and events like it were enactments of Luther's policy—in other words, acts that drove Jews out of their homes and destroyed their livelihood and synagogues. I don't think it was thought at the time that Luther validated the gas chambers, which were operated, unlike the other persecutions, in secrecy. I agree with Michael and others that the holocaust (among other factors, such as the psychopathology of the German leadership) was an extension of Lutheran and Christian antisemitism in Germany. But, unlike Michael, I do not see mass murder itself being specifically advocated by Luther. And on the whole (Streicher is an exception), I do not think the Nazis claimed that it was.


 * It's a nauseating distinction to ponder, I know—as is whether he was antisemitic or antijudaic (I think he was both, given the physicality of his insulting descriptions of Jews). But in my opinion, the evidence for Luther's influence on the Third Reich is actually stronger if it does not become blurred. qp10qp (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I personaly believe that Luther was not a hater of Jews but more concerned for their well fair than most of those now days who think they are. Their is a biais that was in the Luther article that reflects that he is a hater of jews . All articles are  to be wrriten in a neutral point of view . when editing i tried to leave the view and well written stuff  that he was a hater of jews . But made the article reflect that this is only in the eyes of some people  and not in the eyes of some  other's .. I only wish i was better at spelling and gramer so i could better  my  writing . I dont know if i have run on sentances etc. I only know It is now a lot more in a neutral point of view .when i vewed it on Aug 10 AND and aug  /11 of 09. packsaddle  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Packsaddle (talk • contribs) 23:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey all. I felt I had to weigh in here. I agree that the connection of Luther's beliefs to Hitler's use of them is inflammatory and in poor taste. While the argument is made that this fact is historically significant, it would be best located under the article on Hitler. Historical context suggests this is clearly irrelevant to the life and work of Luther and can confuse the topic. 199.60.41.15 (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Luther The Man.
A point often missed about Luther is the ecliptic nature of his character. The man who knelt and prayed so sweetly about Jesus, was also a foul mouthed drunkard for much of his time. Whether he had genuine visions or was dizzy with DTs we will never know. His appalling advocacy of violence against Jewish men women and children will definitely be a subject at his last Judgment, (if it isn't then some of us are reading a wrong Bible). Erick Erikson has produced a study of Luther (Young man Luther) that some say explain his alleged hysterical outbursts. It is easy to see why scholars who remain loyal to the Catholic church find the claim that Luther was any kind of Reformer a Joke (to say the least). But how can his sermons and writings be disputed? Are they not theologically sound? (despite the man who wrote them). Another point is Luther's powerful idea of the separation of Church and State. Would any one agree that the real tragady about Luther is that his reforms could have been remembered and he was not well and truly forgotten by history? Johnwrd (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I definitely think there's scope for including more of Luther the real man in this article. It's tricky, though, because we can't take any one of his facets—from the reasonable calming figure of the Invocavit Sermons to the foamer-at-the mouth against the peasants and Jews—as definitive.


 * As far as his writings are concerned, of course they can be disputed, and they still are. The irony is that Luther regarded most of his writings as tracts for the moment rather than as authoritative theology to be cited like scripture. Very little of Lutheranism depends on Luther's actual writing itself. He is not a sacred leader whose word is law but simply a theologian who led some seminal breakthroughs. For this reason, I don't think his faults as a man or his more problematic writings detract from the Lutheran denomination (which I don't belong to) at all. On the contrary, they innoculate against adulation. Luther never pretended to be a good man, and he was always aware of his sinfulness—that makes him like most of us. In a sense, this fits well with his belief that grace cannot be earned by virtue. If he had been saintly, this insight would not have seemed to apply to him, and he might have become idolised. For me, the flaws are part and parcel of Luther: they temper the message with realism. qp10qp (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me personally say that, while I do not want to read the Levites onto you as we say in Germany, and while I do vote for discussing what is sinful and what is not -- : I hate to talk about something as being "a subject at" a given human person's "last judgment". - How can his sermons or writings be disputed? They could indeed. If he did indeed say what the papal bull "Exsurge Domine" contains as his dicta (and let the ominous no. 33 be excluded), then there he was just wrong. The theological soundness is not sometimes not very clear, too. I acknowledge that he seems, with honest reasons, have felt a need to disadvocate the celibacy for the secular clergy, which was not right, but sound. The important thing is that Dr. Luther, as any sound theologist would, did hold up the virginity, and existence and binding status once entered, of the religious clergy; until he found himself in front of a cloister-storming mob that unfortunately happened to belong to his own party: he did then, with some arguments having all appearances of a self-serving declaration, away with the religious clergy, the religious laymen, and the idea of a vow at all, and also with the words of Our Lord who, after all, did want a state of perfection. - Let me also correct you on some points where you are mistaken right to the contrary. If we need a hero for the idea of separation of the Church and the State, we have to call him by the name of Gregory VII. If there was one point certain, it is that Luther was against, not only not for but against, the idea of separation of the Church and the State. It was explicitly his teaching that every baptized is virtually pope and bishop and all the rest, and that therefore the secular power (why them? why not the ones who happen to be ordained? why, even if it would be only a discipline for the good of the Church, not stay to this discipline for the good of the Church? i ask as a Catholic) has the right and duty to put the whole ecclesiastical affair under their control. And when the Emperor, who was (except some sort of patronage and giving subsidies, and the ecclesiastical princes of course) the only if any secular authority to interfere with the Church, refused to do so, as the Emperor wanted to remain in a Church even though this Church's Pope in his function as a temporal power was behaving rather inimically towards him, he advocated for the regional princes to assume, contrary to all principles of legitimity, an authority they had not had. -- Another thing, if Luther was aware of his sinfulness, that at least doesn't make him like most of us, as most unfortunately, we're far too little so; that would be what made him in fact appear saintly, as seen in the cases of the three Theresias (the great, the little and the one of Calcutta), Francis of Assisi, Charles de Foucault, Ignace of Loyola, and we may procede. However, the canonised saints didn't hold it a sin to want to please God, but generally speaking, they held it as a sin not to want to please God.--84.154.62.167 (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

OCD
Maybe mention his well documented Obsessive–compulsive disorder. http://www.atheistmedia.com/2009/06/sapolsky-on-religion.html Minuite: 61 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.47.82.95 (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure we should include retrospective diagnosis. qp10qp (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

hI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.76.39 (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 115.240.20.200, 17 May 2010
I request you to give me permission for editing the text on wikipedia. I use wikipedia daily and also find some error while reading it. i hope you will grant me he permission to edit it. Thanking you in anticipation.

115.240.20.200 (talk) 08:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi there!


 * You can edit almost all articles on Wikipedia, but we have had to temporarily 'protect' this one, because of vandalism. It will be available again after 24 May 2010 (unless there is more).


 * If you get an account, then after 4 days and having made 10 edits to any page, you will be able to edit it.

Alternatively, you could tell us here exactly what you think should be changed - make sure you include appropriate reliable sources to show where the facts can be verified.

If you have any questions, you can talk to us live, with this or this. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  09:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible vandalism at Martin Luther and antisemitism
Could someone please look at this? Martin Luther and antisemitism This paragraph seems like vandalism to me: A few years later, in 1528, Luther reported a nearly fatal bout of diarrhea brought on by his consumption of Kosher food. In a letter to Melancthon, Luther suggested that the Jewish community had attempted to poison him. Luther further suggested that Kosher foods, which he believed to be disagreeable with the constitution of Gentiles, were eaten by the Jews (who, presumably, would not experience adverse effects from their consumption) as a show of superiority over the Gentiles and as a means of separating themselves from the mainstream German culture. He suggested that Kosher foods be banned from Christian nations. --Gary123 (talk) 09:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Arts and Entertainment bio?
Why is Martin Luther listed with an Arts and Entertainment bio?--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

What happened on February 18th, 1546?
I hear that he actually died in 1533, which makes more sense to me. Could we get an inline citation for this? thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nate5713 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Please Add Categories
German Lutherans Lutheran theologians German Protestant theologians|Lutheran

Tcschenks (talk) 09:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Augustinian
We may not go so far as did the knight von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, who referred to him as Dr. Martin Luther O.S.A., but I think it would be fitting for the introduction as well, rather than only the body of the article, to state that he was a Hermite of St. Augustine, and thus a monk too besides a priest. By the way, Chesterton gives quite a meditation about a papal statement referring to the Reformation as "a quarrel among monks". --84.154.62.167 (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

archiving this talk page
Does anyone object to me setting up autoarchiving on this talk page? I think this will help focus on current talk--otherwise, we have a situation like today when an IP came and replied to a talk page comment from over a year ago. Since the talk is relatively slow, I figure I'll set the initial archiving at anything older than 90 days. Any objections? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

On the mortality of the soul
I removed some editorialising here. The article had said that a certain reading of Luther was "incorrectly annotated" by Schewe. Who says it's incorrect? That's clearly OR. StAnselm (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That section is very difficult to follow, but I believe that StAnselm has gotten the key--that we need to attribute the re-translation to Fitschel--we certainly cannot make the claim ourselves. I also am wondering what is going on with the phrase "remove the offence"--who is offended, or what crime was committed?  Qwyrxian (talk) 01:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

A pdf What Happens to the Soul After Death? By Harold A. Schewe. [Western Conference Pastoral Conference, McIntosh, South Dakota, October 3, 1978] which is simply citing a translation should not be counted equal with a German-born/speaking Lutheran professor. I'm very sorry but St Anselm is incorrect, and further the edits show he cannot read either Latin or German references so should not be editing them. Gottfried Fritschel (the father) explores the Latin text at length in his Luther und offene Fragen 1867 and despite a flurry from conservative Lutherans at the time (1870s) I am not aware of any academic source that questions Fritschel's view. Even populist sources such as Ellingsen (Was Jesus a Republican? etc.) who paraphrases the same old In primum librum Mose enarrationes passage in incorrect English translation notes "Luther's more characteristic view, however, was to conceive of death as sleep — as a kind of "soul sleep" (Letter to Hans Luther, in LW 49:270)" In ictu oculi (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, as it stands, the paragraph makes very little sense. I'm very sceptical that the sources support the idea that Luther's teaching "source of embarrassment" to Gerhard. One of the footnotes reference Gerhard himself. Does he say this? Does he say "I'm embarrassed by Luther's statement"? It sounds like we're making that bit up ourselves. The other footnote (currently 146) has a quote, but the quote doesn't hint at embarrassment. Then there's the statement about something one statement has "frequently been incompletely cited". This is too vague to be of much help. Citations are almost always incomplete. Is it out of context or misunderstood? Then we need to say who is claiming this and be clear that it is a claim. StAnselm (talk) 04:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * St. Anselm someone familiar with the source texts can no doubt can contribute improving edits, but with respect based on your continued uninformed and NPOV deletions and edits activities here and Luther related content in Soul Sleep article I do not think it should be you. The given ref "John Gerhard listed seven arguments or quotations from Luther against the charge that Luther had taught soul sleep" demonstrates Gerhard thought Luther's view sufficient to list seven arguments or quotations from Luther against the charge that Luther had taught soul sleep. Pieper's comment that "Ein Seelenschlaf, der ein Geniessen Gottes einschliesst (so Luther), ist nicht als irrige Lehre zu bezeichnen." shows that some held Luther's view irrige Lehre = embarrassment. Please leave editing this content to someone familiar with the source texts. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added an English translation (1898) of the Primum Librum Mose Enarrationes passage In ictu oculi (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC).
 * Well, needless to say - I reject the idea that I need to be fluent in German to edit this article. I don't know what you mean by my "NPOV deletions", but I do believe they are helping the section become more neutral. You're still saying that Schewe and Ellingsen are wrong - as I've repeatedly said, it is not for you to say this. It comes under WP:SYNTHESIS. That's why I'm deleting those footnotes. StAnselm (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You've complained about me deleting refs, but some of them simply don't seem to back up assertions in the article. For example, Taito Almar Kantonen was cited backing up the assertion that Henry Eyster Jacobs's translation was published in 1898. Well, if Kantonen is saying that Jacobs' is the correct translation, then that's fine - but it's not at all clear what Kantonen has to do with Jacobs. I've also removed the CTM reference (why didn't you include the author, anyway?) because it's not supporting the statement of Pieper's assertion. References are there to support assertions in the article. They can also be used for explanatory material, of course, but then it actually has to explain the assertion. StAnselm (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Luther's hymns
Luther was an influential writer of hymns, words and music, for example Gelobet seist du, Jesu Christ. I don't find even the word hymn in the article. Looking further at "sources", I find a list of hymns - in German. I can read that, but how about others? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Question?
I've read recently that Luther's "Against the Jews" was a response to his reading of some extremely disturbing things in the Talmud. Should that be taken into account here? 12.10.124.189 (talk) 06:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Is that really the phrase we want to use? Saying Luther was concerned with "the Jewish Question" sounds completely patronizing and nazi-esque to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.151.117 (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Well Luther's position was nazi-esque and he deserves to be patronized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.86.15 (talk) 13:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've changed the sentence to: "Luther wrote about the Jews throughout his career, though only a few of his works dealt with them directly". qp10qp (talk) 15:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

When one advocates the burning of Jewish homes and synagogues, the only response is to recognize Martin Luther for who he was. Someone who promoted the torture and killing of Jews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.86.15 (talk) 13:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's amazing the amount of ignorance concerning Martin Luther. Early in his life he was a stalwart defender of the Jews, saying


 * "We ought...not to treat the Jews in so unkindly a spirit,"-Luther, Magnificat, 21:354f.


 * and


 * "Absurd theologians defend hatred for the Jews. ... What Jew would consent to enter our ranks when he sees the cruelty and enmity we wreak on them—that in our behavior towards them we less resemble Christians than beasts?"-Luther quoted in Elliot Rosenberg, But Were They Good for the Jews? (New York: Birch Lane Press, 1997), p.65.


 * What people fail to put together is that Luther suffered a tremendous decline in health in his old age (Iversen OH (1996). "[Martin Luther's somatic diseases. A short life-history 450 years after his death]" (in Norwegian). Tidsskr. Nor. Laegeforen. 116 (30): 3643–46.) and decayed into senility. It was in this state that he challenged the canonicity of the Book of James and even recanted his faith on his death-bed. He lost his mind in his old age. Medicine had simply failed to progress to the point where they could diagnose it at that point in history. His later comments should not be privileged any more than the average institutionalized individual. It's very sad that people who wish to defame Luther take such a narrow-minded view of his illness and comments in order to discredit him. Truly it was a tragedy that such a great man was so utterly destroyed by illness. I have experienced this personally as I have watched relatives descend into incoherency and, in some cases, vicious hate. It is a very sad reality. 98.114.89.231 (talk) 05:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Further timeline confusion
The article states that Martin Luther entered Erfurt University in 1501 at age 19. However, he was born in November 1483, which means that if he entered the university any time before November, he was actually 17. 24.72.91.193 (talk) 07:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Maryanne

Edit request from Purecreations777, 21 February 2011
When the article implies that "recent scholarship" suggests that Martin Luther did not say "Here I stand, I can do no other", they are doing two things. First, they are assuming that "recent scholarship" is correct. Secondly, they are taking one of the phrases that is most attributed to Luther and have suddenly declared it by their supposed "scholarship" as null and void. They also cite "witnesses", but keep in mind that many witnesses at the Diet of Worms were set totally against Martin Luther as well, especially those from the Romanistic persuasion. Another argument to be made is that oftentimes "recent scholarship" is like "recent science" which seems to change every few years or decades; whereas, more classic scholarship (i.e. including classic phrases like the one cited above) tend to stand the test of time, as do classic scholars, so unlike the "recent scholars" who sometimes may spout off such rhetoric to appease their own egos or justify the government grant which paid for their presumed "scholarship". I have shared my thoughts and it is now your turn to either attempt due diligence in researching this matter or to change the version of Luther's famous discourse at Worms to represent the one that is classic, instead of the one censored by "recent scholarship". Here I stand, I can do no other. It is now your responsiblity.

Purecreations777 (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * A question related to this: that sentence is supported by a reference to "Wilson", as, in fact, are many other places in the article. However, the actual, full reference (book title, ISBN, etc.) is not listed anywhere in the references or the Further Reading. Can someone please add that somewhere?  That might help us evaluate the above.  However, I do note that our job on Wikipedia is not to evaluate the quality of scholarship; if Wilson is recognized as an expert on Martin Luther or the general history of religion/Catholicism, then that is all we care about.  Wikipedia's only responsibility is to accurately represent what reliable sources state, not to make judgments about which sources are actually "correct". If you (Purecreations777) have other sources which refute Wilson or hold a different opinion, we can include those as well.  My only concern would be if Wilson is not a reliable source, something I can't tell without seeing the actual reference.  Qwyrxian (talk) 02:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 174.62.196.85, 13 March 2011
174.62.196.85 (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)waz good

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Please explain specifically what you think should be changed in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Reference to Jesus Christ in the introduction
The link needed to be corrected to the article on Jesus Christ, so the change was made.--Drboisclair (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism featured in lede?
I am not a Lutheran. And I am definitely not antisemitic. I only mention this because I am sure there will be the accusations of POV if I don't get this out of the way.

I find it highly cynical to include Luther's antisemitic positions in the lede. I am very comfortable with that information being placed within the article, but as a neutral observer it seems historically and contextually unfair to give such attention to this matter that early on and as the final point. My rationale follows;

1. For Luther, having been raised within the Catholic faith this religious position would have been quite common-place and so not really noteworthy (except as a means of discrediting him).

2. Even coming from that history, one can see him trying to break from his antisemitic heritage in his earlier writings. If he really hated the Jewish people why would he try to convert them?

3. The point in his life when his writings became pointedly antisemitic were in his later years when it appears he was going a little bonkers (who can blame him given the horrible health conditions he faced). The article states during those years that, "His poor physical health made him short-tempered and even harsher in his writings and comments."

So, in short. I propose removal of the antisemitic claims from the lede as they do not reflect Luther's general influence and in reality could be dismissed as the ramblings of an old man.

Before the attacks start flying, I am not antisemitic. I personally see the Jewish people as a promised and chosen people. If I were to have met Luther in his lifetime I would likely have told him to go back to bed, drink more water, and that he was wrong so shut up. But I also believe the summary of Luther's amazing life should not end with a qualifier about antisemitism, which I agree is a huge problem, but in this historical context it is a minor issue. -- Canad iandy   talk  16:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree, I think it's handled appropriately with respect the NPOV and due weight. He wrote two treatise and four sermons on the subject, to which we devote about the same amount of text as we do to his Hymns and far less than the section on the reformation. Compared to other public figures who have controversies and scandals later in life, the standard seems to be to note them in the lede section if they were notable enough. I think this fits the requirements for notability (there is an entire article devoted to the subject Martin Luther and antisemitism, which has been deemed notable).
 * I feel that removing the reference in the lede is more likely to be NPOV by whitewashing, than keeping it is to be NPOV due to undue weight. As a final disclosure, I consider myself a Lutheran, and despite my disagreeing strongly with Luther's viewpoint on this I feel it is an important enough topic of discussion. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Am I wrong in my reading of the article then. Did not Luther come from a community steeped in antisemitism, and then did he not actually try to break from this mold on a number of occasions? You are right that he later wrote a great deal on the subject of the Jewish people, but again this was very near the end of his life when he seemed to be a little (or a great deal 'off.' I do not in any way suggest removing the information pointing to his late-in-life treatment of the Jewish people in his writings, but I also think this belongs as secondary information. Unless someone can provide evidence that Luther strongly influenced a change in antisemitic opinion or attitudes (not the same as people justifying their antisemitic attitudes based on his writings as did Hitler) then this is not nearly as relevant as is Luther's role in the reformation and his political impact. I do not think it is a whitewash to simply include this information under the later mid-article heading of 'antisemitism', the topic heading and link is only a few lines after the present placement of the sentence anyway.-- Canad iandy   talk  19:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * From the article Martin Luther and antisemitism:
 * The prevailing view[27] among historians is that his anti-Jewish rhetoric contributed significantly to the development of antisemitism in Germany,[28] and in the 1930s and 1940s provided an ideal foundation for the National Socialists' attacks on Jews.[29] Reinhold Lewin writes that "whoever wrote against the Jews for whatever reason believed he had the right to justify himself by triumphantly referring to Luther." According to Michael, just about every anti-Jewish book printed in the Third Reich contained references to and quotations from Luther. Diarmaid MacCulloch argues that Luther's 1543 pamphlet On the Jews and Their Lies was a "blueprint" for the Kristallnacht.[30]
 * I don't think actual relevence is as important as perceived relevence. It doesn't matter whether Luther materially changed antisemitism in Germany, it matters that he exists in the public consciousness and debate for a prolonged period of time that his involvement became notable. Similarly, the Bill Clinton article mentions the Lewinsky scandal and fallout in the lede (widely covered by the media for an extended period despite being materially insignificant compared to two terms as president and numerous other achievements), but Dick Cheney does not receive a lede mention of his hunting incident (shorter media exposure, no criminal charges). Most topics of scandals do receive a mention of said scandal in the lede, I see this along the same lines.
 * I would not be against a rewrite of the section, perhaps emphasising both his mental shift in his later years, as well as his works being used as justification of further antisemitism. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * A rewrite qualifying his later expressions as a mental shift coinciding with personal physical suffering seems an excellent and fair-minded compromise. Good Wiki-Karma, Bakkster.-- Canad iandy   talk  20:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have taken a stab at an improvement. Let me know if you agree.-- Canad iandy   talk  05:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I like it, particularly that the antisemitism was increased (since the term refers to everything from prejudice to hatred). The two additions that I would consider still are the connection that his failed conversion attempts played, as well as the appropriation of his works as justification for later antisemitism. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Definitely yes to the first, not sure to the second. Sure Hitler (and other scumbags) used Luther's writing as a justification for the holocaust. But I think such mentions belong at the page on Hitler. To address them here seems to add to the association some might make over Luther's responsibility for Hitler's actions which is, I feel, unfair. The article is on Luther, not 'The Impacts of Luther's Late-in-life Writings on the Jewish Holocaust.' Can it be added? Yes. Should it be added? I say, "Not here."-- Canad iandy   talk  14:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Wasn't sold on the impact of his writings being needed in the lede, but those interested certainly have plenty of text later in the article which they can read on the subject. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Good work. I am curious if this improvement is preferable to Lutherans here. Of course we must be neutral, but if we can be neutral AND sensitive then it is a win-win and increases the likelihood of good article status. -- Canad iandy   talk  01:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the only thing that could still be improved is "These statements have contributed to his controversial status". Either we should say the controversy is related to these statements in particular, or we should explain why he was controversial in the first place earlier in the lede.
 * In any case, as a Lutheran I'm quite happy with the lede. Two of the largest tennets of Luther's teachings were that all people are sinful and yet can be justified through grace. This is on top of the initial reformation teachings against deifying human leaders of the church, part of the reason for which is the sinful nature of each of these leaders. As such, there's no reason why most Lutherans would object to truthful descriptions of a leader's failings. Thanks for the help! Bakkster Man (talk) 13:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I would like to see it reworded so that it does not suggest that Luther is universally "controversial." That seems both implied and unfair. I do not expect any major religious figure will be free of controversy, but I would prefer to see something more like, "These statements have contributed to some of the controversy surrounding his teachings" or if wordiness isn't too big a deal, "These statements have contributed to the controversy surrounding his teachings regarding the Jewish people''. -- Canad iandy   talk  03:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think something like "These works have contributed to controversy surrounding his teachings" might be the best. It identifies what kind of controversy (that of his teachings) and what caused it (the treatise and sermons). Though, I would like to find one of the sources in the article that says something to this effect before writing it to be more specific, as our interpretation could be wrong. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.243.220.3, 31 May 2011
The picture of the stained glass needs cap. "L" in "Luther", cap. "M" in "Murska" cap. "S" in "Sobota"

98.243.220.3 (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Done, thanks. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

References for "The start of the Reformation" section
I've removed the rather poor reference inserted by a recent editor and reinstated the "Citation needed" tag for the quote regarding the manner of the presentation of the 95 Theses. According to the article's current text: "the only contemporary account of the publishing of the theses is the Latin account by his servant Agricola".

It seems that this slightly awkward English translation of the original Latin text might possibly be improved; and the link to "Agricola" leads only to a disambiguation page, and "servant" seems questionable too, especially if it is either Johannes Agricola or Stephan Agricola who is the author of the quotation. As this is rather an important point (given the prevalence of the mythic version of events) it needs to be better substantiated. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 08:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Bible ownership in the middle ages
I don't really know where to post this so I'll do it here. There's a large scale research on bible ownership ongoing, carried out by the University of Groningen. The first findings are that people already kept bibles at home (latin of course) before the reformation. Even carpenters, shoemakers and certain farmers kept copies, though they didnt speak Latin. So far results are published in this newspaper but its still all in Dutch. The results are based on 2 years of research in Dutch, Flemish, French and Italian libraries. Machinarium (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Completing the requested move of the Luther redirect
A while back there was a discussion and agreement at Talk:Luther to move the redirect of "Luther" from the Martin Luther page to the Luther DAB page. The move was agreed on and carried out, but was reverted on the grounds that we needed to move the DAB page instead (WP:MALPLACED). I have just now made the request for that move; the RM announcement is at Talk:Luther (disambiguation). Aristophanes 68   (talk)  16:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion of a small change
In the very first lines I suggest that ...was a German priest and professor of theology... is changed into ...was a German monk, priest and professor of theology.... Apart from the 95 points that eventually led to the reformation, he is also famous for became a monk, after his cry for help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.32.242 (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Please rollback and watch for edits:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_Luther&action=historysubmit&diff=459838561&oldid=459738024

Not sure why I can't roll that back. Presumably someone can. 107.8.186.144 (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Martin Luther: A bowler?
There is a web page about bowling history (http://www.wallenpaupackbowlingcenter.com/9.asp), that says Martin Luther "had his own bowling lane and is credited with fixing the number of pins at 9 and writing the first book of rules for 9-pin bowling." This sounds like it may be a joke, but could someone research it and add it to the page if true.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phdaddy (talk • contribs) 15:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 December 2011
Reference number 229  Hull, Timothy Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings, Second Edition (2005), p. 25....should be changed to read:

Lull, Timothy. Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings, Second Edition (2005), p. 25

PastorLutheran (talk) 08:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done --Jnorton7558 (talk) 16:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Links
I feel that this article has too many links, particularly in the lead section (see WP:LINKS). There are also a lot of repeated links (particularly Johann Tetzel and the Archbishop of Mainz) and very general religious-themed links (e.g. linking to "prayer" when it says that Luther devoted himself to prayer and fasting). Would anyone object to me removing some of these links, and do you have reasons to keep them here? DopplerRadioShow (talk) 03:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Justification by faith
There is a huge paragraph in the "The start of the Reformation" above "Justification by faith" that attempts to discredit a bunch of commonly held ideas about the circumstances of the 95 thesis. I added in a liberal sprinkling of since this was a huge blob of psuedo-"facts" that hadn't been verified in any way for almost a year. This wasn't meant to be a menace, I am just trying to clarify the large number of claims in this paragraph. Thanks Hadlock (talk) 11:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It does seem to have formed rather a carbuncle on the article. In an encyclopedia, it's better to deal with such matters in two or three sentences than to go over and over the same ground ad nauseam, breaking the flow of the text. In a nutshell: there's no direct evidence that Luther nailed the theses to the door, but Melanchthon's comment means the possibility shouldn't be totally dismissed.

He was a Friar, not a "Monk"
Two images of Luther in this article have captions that identify Luther as a "monk." However, Luther never belonged to any monastic order. He was an Augustinian friar, and should be identified as a "friar." Friars are not monks, and monks are not friars. In the section of the article that is titled "Monastic and Academic Life, there is a quotation from Luther in which he says "If anyone could have gained heaven as a monk...." However, in the original German, the word "monch" can be translated as either "monk" or "friar." In this case, it should be translated "friar." That same section begins be saying that "Luther dedicated himself to monastic life." Actually, he did not dedicate himself to monastic life. He was a friar, and dedicated himself to teaching, fasting, prayer and frequent confession. But he did not dedicate himself to monastic life. All these terms have definitions and should not be used carelessly. PGNormand (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We use reliable sources. A quick check at google books yields scores of books that label him as monk. <font face="High Tower Text" size="1px"><b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b> 18:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I checked today for readers interested in this issue. 119K results for monk; 21.8K for friar. -- tbc (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

An assertion about using reliable sources does not make it so. To amend this description from "monk" to "friar" is not to rely upon new research, but to increase the accuracy of the account based on the existing scholarly literature. Luther was an Augustinian Friar, a mendicant order, distinct from other monastic orders extant in sixteenth century Europe (Benedictine, Cistercian, etc.). There was an identifiable ethos and worldview for mendicant orders that distinguished it from the monastic orders. It helps to explain both historically and theologically Luther's own journey and theological vision, not the least of which why he had so much individual freedom whilst still a religious. I am not surprised by the popular assessment of Luther as a monk, but to claim that the popular view trumps historical accuracy undermines the efficacy of the Wikipedia project. This is not a case of historiographical interpretation: even if readers and historians want to claim no theological difference between a monk and a friar, these terms were of significance to Luther himself (he uses them in his writings) and so should be reflected in a historical account of him. Theologus (talk) 15:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, it seems he was a member of an order of friars, but entered a "closed Augustinian friary". My understanding is the primary difference between a monk and friar is that a friar lives amongst the people rather than a closed monastery. It seems while primarily friars, the Augustinians also had hermit monks, which it seems Luther self-describes himself as. So I guess the question is, if a friar enters a hermitage, does he become a monk? Bakkster Man (talk) 16:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

An online Catholic encyclopedia offers an explicit discussion of the difference. Certainly in canon law they are different and their underlying vision is different; ultimately monks exist to serve within their community, though in practice superiors may choose to engage them with ministry to the world, whereas Friars exist to fulfill the ministry of the church to the world. There can be no doubt that Luther's order was, in form, an order of friars. Whether in practice it looked like an order of monks is another matter. Ender&#39;s Shadow Snr (talk) 07:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Could it be that "monk" have different meanings as from the clerical perspective and the popular perspective? Personally I would prefer an original term usage, but that would violate the general philosophy of WP which promotes general "terminology" before original (in the sense of origin) terminology. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 12:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)