User talk:CTSWyneken

Hello CTSWyneken, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. You can learn more on the how to edit page. The naming conventions and manual of style pages are also useful. Feel free to experiment at the Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you have any questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Angela

Welcome & note on copyright

A belated welcome from me, as well. I feel that you are genuinely interested in improving the Luther article, so I apologize if I came off a bit harsh regarding the copyright issue. I have written the meta text m:Avoid copyright paranoia because I feel that copyright matters are often exaggerated, or used as a red herring. (As a matter of fact, I do not recall a single actual copyright complaint from a party owning a copyright!) I also find the whole idea of copyrighted translations of public domain works silly, even if recognized by precedent -- would our quote magically revert to the public domain if we changed a few words?

Nevertheless, I look forward to your contributions regarding Luther, and possibly other pages as well. We definitely need more experts to look through our historical articles. --Eloquence 19:15 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

I feel I have been remiss, not introducing myself before, even though you expressed curiosity about where I was coming from. Okay, here goes. I live in a country which has an established Evangelical-Lutheran state church (Finland). I am not a member of the church, but am a member of the culture. And here we have a very robust image of Martin Luther. Churchmen and atheists here do not mask any of the color in his persona. When I first came upon the Martin Luther entry here, it struck me as phenomenally candy-assed. I have to the best of my ability tried to add some flesh into the image of a man who did not lack flesh. If it is a sin, count it against me, please. The works I have in my library (in addition to the many purely national works having to do with our own lutheran church and it's connection with the man himself) are James M. Kittelson: Luther the Reformer (The Story of the Man and his Career), Gottfried Fitzer: Was Luther Wirklich Sagte. Oh, and of course I do have a translated compendium of his works (nearly 1800 pages in 3 volumes). But let me emphasize that I have these purely out of general interest in the world we live in and its general history. I consider them indispensable in understanding the world, and I would like that the Martin Luther article serve that purpose primarily as well. We don't need to describe the man, as long as we acknowledge all the sides of him that have affected cultures around the world. (nicely phrased, if I do say so myself) But maybe some bit of the man himself would not hurt. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 20:40 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the intro, Cimon. My interest in Luther comes from being a spiritual disciple of his, a publisher and translator of his work on the internet, a pastor of the Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod, a church historian and a instructor at the night school division of a university.

I came to the article when very loud complaints came from folks who had seen it. The article was, when I saw it, just an excuse to trash the reformer, incomplete by far. My intent was to fill it out, bring it to an NPOV state and to make it something I wouldn't mind my students quoting in their papers. I ended up a kind of catalyst that set off folks that would, on the one side, turn Luther into a superhero, and, on the other side, an archvillian.

Where I hope we will be when we're done with it and other related articles, is to have a fair, balanced, chronicle of who Luther was, what he believed and what his significance is. In other words, doing pretty much what other encyclopedists have done. CTSWyneken 22:01 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

MO Synod

Hi, I'm glad you've made those great changes to the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod article. But why did you get rid of the 3 sections at the end? They were the one that talked about relations with other church bodies, the list of synod presidents, and the external links. Fishal 17:46, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, since everyone here's been quite friendly, I should introduce myself as well. I'm a secondary education student at Concordia University, River Forest, currently spending the semester at Concordia University, Saint Paul. So I've had lots and lots of exposure to the LCMS. I'm friends with several people bound to your institution, actually. Exciting. It's been nice meeting you.

Good to meet you, Fishal. Glad that you're at one of our colleges. Are you pre-sem?

I'm not sure what happened to the end sections and glad they're back. If it was me that deleted them, it was an accident. I first waded into wiki about a year ago, when the Luther article was very, very bad. It is finally taking shape, but I can only take a shot at it from time to time. See my page for an intro. Right now I have my hand (or cursor) in a number of articles. --CTSWyneken 02:46, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, I'm in the Secondary Education program, as I said, but have some close friends who are going to seminary. Fishal 19:58, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here's some ideas re the Confessional Lutheran stub that recently arose out of the LCMS article. I'm the one who made "confessional Lutheran" in the article link to Confessing Movement because the term fits the LCMS's confessional movement so well: trying to steer the denomination away from secularism, female clergy, etc. The Confessional MO Synod Lutherans' case is different because (a) there is an emphasis on the Book of COncord, and (b) the confessional movement is significant enough within the synod to dictate important policy, so much so that the article can call the synod a "confessional Lutheran denomination." But don't you think it would be better to add a section on LCMS confessionalism to the Confessing movement article, rather than create a stub that will likely never get longer? I used the same logic when I merged Historical-Critical Method into Higher criticism. Fishal 03:46, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think that a separate article is needed for the Confessional Lutheran movement because it is not historically a part of the confessing movement at all. The movement to confessional Lutheranism arose in the 1830s as a reaction to pietism on the one side and rationalism on the other. It arrives in America with the emigration of groups like the Saxons of Missouri and Grabau's group in Western New York. Folk like F.C.D. Wyneken come on board as they read Luther and the Book of Concord. Unlike the confessing movement, the Lutheran Confessionalists do not comprimise easily on matters of doctrine and practice. So, although the name's nearly the same, the movement is in fact distinct. --CTSWyneken 10:55, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I didn't realize the term and the movement went back that far. Thanks. Fishal 17:15, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Hi CTSWyneken. I've looked through your additions to the MO Synod page and thought they were great. I just added a section to the history part and I wondered if you'd take a look at it. (I've asked Fishal the same thing.) I thought readers might be interested in some of the background to recent internal debates, so I added a brief note on Seminex, the formation of internal caucuses, the Benke fracas, etc. I tried to be scrupulous in avoiding POV problems, and I think I succeeded in that regard. However, I'm new to the subject and might have misinterpreted something, so I wanted you to take a look. One area of confusion was in naming the various "wings":

• It seems like the most conservative wing uses the name "liberal" for the other wing, but this might confuse non-LCMS readers because the more "liberal" LCMS camp bears almost no resemblance to "liberals" in the way the word is usually used in American society. (And I shied away from using "evangelical," because it seemed that there might be many who are socially/doctrinally more moderate/liberal but who are nonetheless supportive of traditional forms of liturgy.) So I opted for "moderate," even though this camp is conservative in the grand scheme of U.S. culture, politics, & religion.
• And as for the other wing, would "confessional" be an accurate internal name for the most conservative wing?

Sorry for my confusion, but I did my best with the edit. Anyway, take a look and let me know if this looks okay. Thanks! Ropcat

---

There was a series of changes made by User:192.160.64.49 on Feb. 4 to Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod; do you want to take a quick look at them? I have some questions, but you're probably better qualifed to review them. Johnh 23:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Luther's Name

The German word spelled Luder or Ludder has, I believe, the meaning in German of a scoundrel. The slight respelling (after he entered the cloister at Erfurt, I think), changing the sound from Looder to the sound Lootter, eliminated that taunt. I'd like to add something to that effect to the end of the first section of the article. What do you think? --StanZegel 02:55, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I think the whole thing is tangental and would like to delete it. This is, after all, an encyclopedia, and should be somewhat general. If you do add it, I'd pu it in the area about Luther's birth and family. Better yet would be a tiny article on the whole thing and just carve it out of the main article altogether. But that's me. If you add it, you might want to go into Luther signing some of his writings with a rennaisance style eleutheros, free one in Greek. Eventually he dropped that pen name. -- Bob --CTSWyneken 12:14, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lutheranism page project

Bob, a pedantic note on word order: "At death they teach that Christians are..." might work better as "They teach that, at death Christians are..." --StanZegel 03:27, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good thought! If I don't fix it, it'll be because I forget. Go ahead and fix it. -- Bob --CTSWyneken 11:02, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hello

Hello. In formal principle and some of your other edits, I think you're using too many capital letters. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style; in Wikipedia, we don't normally capitalize an initial letter merely because it's in an article title or a section heading. Also, it is usually better to write "In zoology, a dog is an animal that barks" than "Dog is a term used by zoologists to refer to an animal that barks." I think the latter syntax should be used only when there is a reason to say something about the word "dog" rather than about dogs. In Cajetan, I have adapted the opening sentence to Wikipedia conventions by highlighting the title phrase (in this case, the man's name) at its first appearance and disabbreviating some words that were abbreviated, and making the first sentence a complete sentence. I've also changed the article's title to Thomas Cajetan; I don't think using only the surname should be done except in redirect pages. I've put in a link to cardinal (Catholicism) in that article; certainly more links should be added. Also, I'm going to add that page to the list of notable cardinals. Michael Hardy 23:08, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! This is good work. I'll add some links to Cajetan. Bob --CTSWyneken 02:17, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rechtschreibung

In Martin Luther#Exile at the Wartburg Castle is the phrase Ueber die weltliche Gewalt, wie weit man ihr Gehorsam echuldig sei which I think may have a misspelled word. Do you think it should really be schuldig?--StanZegel 03:02, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I checked it out. Right you are. It must have been a scanno. 8-) Bob --CTSWyneken 20:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Latin question in Lutheranism

Hi, CTSWyneken. Regarding "sola Christus" vs. either "solo Christo" ("by Christ alone") or "solus Christus" ("Christ alone"): It is true that the feminine "sola" is occasionally used as a mistaken parallel to the other solas which are rightly feminine (the same is true with "soli Deo gloria"), but that usage is grammatically incorrect and not universal even within Lutheranism (cf. this article by Lutheran pastor, Rod Rosenblatt). I suggest we change it to one of the correct forms, which are also in common usage (well, as common as Latin can be). --Flex 14:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dear Flex:

I've not done much research on the form that this sola appears in, but have seen it enough as sola Christus for it to look funny to me to see it any other way. We can go to Solus Christus for now... If I get a moment I'll look around...

Lutheran Eucharistic Theology

Hey, CTS, I saw your comments to Talk:Real Presence, and I want to ask a favor: I just reformatted Transubstantiation, and because of the comments at T:RP, I switched out the existing Lutheran section with the Lutheran section from Eucharist. The old section on Transubstantiation still used "consubstantiation" etc., so I felt it was a good change. Would you check the section for Lutheran accuracy? Thanks, Essjay · Talk 09:26, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Infobox

Hi,

the first infobox on Martin Luther seems to be correctly right-aligned; what exactly do you want to change?--Eloquence* 06:01, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Lutherans / Protestants

Bob, in your recent edit to Martin Luther, your edit summary was that Lutherans don't consider themselves protestants. I was a bit startled when I read it. Could you expand upon that?--StanZegel 14:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Lutheran theology is quite a bit different than that of most denominations that consider themselves Protestant. For instance, Lutherans have a theology of the Means of Grace, by which we mean that God has chosen to work through His Word and through the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. We believe that God the Holy Spirit uses God's Word to create faith in the hearts of unbelievers, that He actually saves people through baptism, even babies and that He gives His real body and real blood in, with and under the elements of the Lord's supper. We do not believe in "accepting Jesus as Savior," that salvation is conditional on good behavior, etc. We also believe that it is good to retain the ancient worship orders of the church, and any traditions that support the gospel. That's just for starters. So we don't we too well with Protestants. A similar list can be made for the Catholic, Orthodox, holiness and other Christian traditions. Since we take Luther seriously, it is at best annoying to have our tradition left out of an article on Luther. 8-) Does that help?

--CTSWyneken 00:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

No, not really. Lutherans are the Urprotestants. There may be other sects of protestants that have different practices, but I think that the term "Protestant" covers all Christian sects no longer having allegience to Rome, but whose historical roots go back to the western catholic church. You seem to be distinguishing Lutherans from Calvinists, what some may call Evangelicals, and the venerable Holy Rollers, but all are flavors of Protestants. Couldn't you use some other term (copycats?) for non-Lutheran protestants :)? --StanZegel 12:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

What about the Orthodox Church? They have no alleagence to Rome, but are neither Protestant nor Lutheran. We could also speak of Anglicanism, which certainly is not protestant exclusively either. I could also argue that Pentecostals, are not protestant either. The problem is the term is so established to mean people with a Calvinist or Armenian viewpoint, that to try and define our way out of that box is futile. We really have as little in common with them as we do with Catholics. Better to simply keep Lutheran as our label and keep us distinct. That would likely please the protestants, who are not at all happy with our sacramental theology. --CTSWyneken 13:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Talk Archives

Bob, I started to classify the previous Talk topics onto thematic pages, but some were too involved to easily follow. Because you were involved in almost all of them, might you be able to take some time to review the two archived talk pages Talk:Martin Luther/archive 1 and Talk:Martin Luther/archive 2005 Sept 19 and cut-and-paste so that certain topics are put into context? To create another subpage, while you are editing a archived page, just type [[talk:Martin Luther/Bob Is Great]] (or whatever topic you want) then Preview your change, shift-click on the new red link you have just created (to open the new page in another window) and then cut and paste from the donor to the recipient page. Add the topic alphabetically at the top of the main talk page, and you are done and rehashes might be avoided. That is, if you think it worth doing and you have the time. Regards, --StanZegel 01:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

p.s. If we were married, instead of yelling at you about leaving the cap off the toothpaste, I might mumble a bit under my breath about overuse (my perception) of the horizontal line in Talk postings that I think is unnecessary above a ==topic== and not a good substitution for indentations as a dialog progresses. It is, in my opinion, justified when needing to interlineate a comment in the middle of a previous posting, but the different ==, ===, ==== levels and ::... indents seem (to me) adequate for most normal talk postings. The horizontal line is useful as a substitute for separating unrelated comments which the author did not start with a ==topic== and we don't want to take the time to create one. (Not to pick a fight... If I wanted to pick one, I'd start in about how Lutherans ARE Protestants!  :-)

Sorry about that. I'm not especially careful on talk pages, especially when I'm there to put out fires. (as is almost always the case) I like the rule to separate messages, esp. when folks do not indent. You may feel free to edit these things all you like, as long as you do not touch the content of my words. 8-) And, about the Protestant thing, for me its simply a useless word at best and dangerous to the salvation of others at worst. Since for some of my brothers it is like being called scum, I tend to find other ways to speak. What's the harm, really, if we're dividing the body of Christ rhetorically anyway, to use more numerous and meaningful sub-divisions? Is being "not Catholic" so important that nothing else matters? Of course, we're not fighting about this one. ;-)

Biographical infoboxes

Prof. Smith, the Wikipedian community is contemplating the wholesale removal of all the biographical infoboxes. If you look at the Luther article, Luther's infobox is targeted for deletion. This is an important matter in my opinion. Please weigh in pro or con. --Rev. Dave Boisclair drboisclair 21:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Real Presence article

I completely agree with you on the Real Presence article. Other things to watch out for is 1) making the "Lutheran" paragraph in this article too long relative to the other traditions, 2) not taking into consideration that Lutherans are not all agreed on all the details, and 3) being too combative with other traditions. I appreciated your discussion of the reasons why we do not accept eucharistic theories like "consubstantiation": that was the word that Roman Catholics popularly used to describe us as late as the 1970's. Lutherans are very picky about the Lord's Supper--sometimes for good reason. The idea of Wikipedia is to increase accuracy, understandibility, and consensus while leaving in place as much as possible (building on what others have added). Unfortunately, there is the need to delete things that are not true. I am sad about all of the vandalism. I wonder if there is an article in Wikipedia about vandalism of Wikipedia articles? Cheers. drboisclair 14:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Cfd

Hi, we had some Latin-related interaction a while back, so I thought I'd ask: If you have a second, could you vote on this: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_September_29#Category:User_la-N. It was overturned last time because of some jokers. --Flex 15:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Luther's marriage and family

Hello, Robert, I have written a paragraph on Luther's marriage and children, which I posted as tentative in Talk:Martin Luther. I gleaned it from Brecht and Bainton with reference to the other biographies. What is interesting is that Bainton mistakes Magdalena's birthday for the day Margaretha was born in Here I Stand. I relied on the Brecht data. Please advise. --drboisclair 23:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi

Bob, just a quick note to say I really admired what you said earlier:

On matters of theology, which are not the concern of this encyclopedia, nor directly relevant to the point we're debating, how would you expect me to speak? If I saw you walking off a cliff, yelled to you, "Don't do it!" and you replied, "That's OK. I can fly!" Would you have me say, "Oh, well, he has a right to his opinion." and walk away?

In any case, as I Catholic I was curious to know what, if you were to enumerate them, would be the 3-5 biggest things you disagree with the Catholic Church about, and what things you admire. I realize not all Lutherans have the same perspectives. In any case you probably know (much) more about my Church than I do yours. I need to learn more about Lutheran views on the Eucharist, that most crucial of things. Anyway, thanks for your presence on Wikipedia. Have a good Sunday! --Dpr 15:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Watchlists

Bob, if at the top of a page you click "Preferences" and then the "Editing" tab, you will see a check-box labeled "Add pages you edit to your watchlist." If you check that box, then every page you edit thereafter (including another user's Talk page) will automatically be added to your watch list. When you log on, just click "my watchlist" at the top of the page and you will then see links and edit summaries of activity to those articles in the past few days. That is helpful because someone to whom you propound an interrogatory can answer on that same talk page and you will be notified that their page has changed (presumably in response to your query). Otherwise, the responder needs to post to your page to be sure you are aware of his response and the continuity of the conversation is lost. Does this help? Can I help more? (Auch: Bitte am meinem talkpage "e-mail this user" klicken und schicke mir Deine privat e-mailaddresse.) --StanZegel (talk) 06:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Law and Gospel

Thank you, Bob, for asking me. What??? Walther inventing it??? I guess some folks need to do more research by going to Project Wittenberg!! Please lend your careful assistance as Stan did for me on the Luther family paragraph. BTW, on the Pilgrim's Progress article an editor was using the data from the low distribution movie rather than the text. You have shown us the importance of careful research in Wikipedia in order to provide a truly quality online source. BTW, Dr. Nagel had a nice 80th birthday celebration on October 8th. Blessings, Dave drboisclair 17:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I have done some of the initial work on Law and Gospel, but would appreciate your looking at it, and adding some things. We might link to Wittenberg Project's Apology. I couldn't think of anyone earlier than Luther really making a point about Law and Gospel. Blessings, Dave drboisclair 18:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Law and Gospel's mention in Luther and linked from Luther

Bob, I suggest that we add this sentence or something like it to the end of "Luther's theory of grace" paragraph:

Luther's definition and reintroduction of the principle of the proper distinction between Law and Gospel safeguarded his theory of grace, which he believed to be the central message of Christianity.

The proper distinction between Law and Gospel plays a vital role in understanding that salvation is a free gift of God. When Law/Gospel distinction and polarity are mixed up, then this understanding is lost.

BTW, This POV thing about the Luther article may be raised by the person who made alterations from "God" to "his God" in this article. Can a newcomer or a person who is not an administrator edit an article by putting in a POV flag? I believe that this person should 1) sign their concern and 2) be specific about the POV issue. Blessings, Dave drboisclair 00:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Bob, you might want to look over changes in "Luther's theory of grace": I have added "proper Law & Gospel distinction in the caption as well as a new paragraph into this section. You may want to refine what needs refining. drboisclair 21:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I share your concern about the chronology in putting the Law/Gospel insight in this paragraph that precedes "Indulgence Controversy"; however, it would not fit thematically in the later paragraphs. My rationalization for putting it in the "Theory of Grace" paragraph stems from the fact that there are elements that were already in that paragraph that may not have been chronologically before the "Indulgence Controversy." Law/Gospel distinction is very closely linked to Luther's doctrine of Justification by grace through faith, so this paragraph is the natural place for a reference to Law / Gospel distinction. We probably need to modify the caption a bit. I would suggest: "Luther's doctrine of Justification and proper Law / Gospel distinction". drboisclair 15:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I have taken your advice and changed the caption to "Luther's theology of grace", which I think it superior to "theory". I have also revised the Law/Gospel paragraph. Please look at it for any needed improvement. drboisclair 17:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Reformation Day question

There's a question at Talk:Reformation_Day that could use more input. Thanks Sumergocognito 00:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Martin Luther and Anti-Semitism

Bob, I am truly sorry for the editing battle that went on on the section on "Luther and Judaism"; I have been very properly taken to task by those who have opposed my actions: Humus sapiens, Jayjg, and Slrubenstein. I have heeded the need to comply with NPOV, and I will recuse myself from editing this controversial paragraph. You may wish to look at it. I hope you have been able to come up for air! drboisclair 23:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Appreciation for fine work

Bob, thank you for the fine work you have done on the Martin Luther article. Stan is also to be credited for fine editing. I don't know why we are thought to "whitewash" anything. I appreciate your stepping in and fixing a problematic scenario. Blessings, David drboisclair 16:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Doctor in Biblia

I thought that it was still to be researched. It is stated in Luther's Works, "Introduction to Volume 10," St. Louis: CPH, vol. 10, pp. 1-2 that that was the name of his theological doctorate. Oberman points out that his position at the U of Wittenberg was "lectura in Biblia." You might say that Luther had a doctorate in biblical studies: this is something that the Old Testament exegetes glory in. I think that the jury is still out on this one as to what you feel is right here. drboisclair 19:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Please see response on my talk page to your kind question: User talk:Drboisclair drboisclair 17:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Walther and slavery

Please see Talk:C.F.W. Walther for a start to the discussion page. You may want to add a few lines. Perhaps we can help the abolitionists to discuss things before they intrude them into Walther's article. drboisclair 08:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

If this article ever becomes detailed enough that Walther's slavery views are relevant (and they may well be, depending upon the Synod's pre-Civil War position), then I suggest that the entry place such views in context, e.g.:

Missouri was a slave state, and slavery was widely supported among its population. It was justified on theological grounds (1 Corinthians 7:20-21, to the effect that everyone should remain in the condition in which he was called) by many clergymen in those slave-holding areas, including Wyneken. During the time that pious New Englanders had slaves, pious clergymen there had justified in on similar grounds.

I think that this states the factual situation in an NPOV way, neither accusatory nor white-washing. Whether it is relevant is a matter that depends upon the LCMS position then, when many church bodies underwent schisms over the issue, and if it is, it may be more appropriate in the history section of the LCMS article than here. But if it ever become relevant here, I suggest something along the lines above, although what I have written could be rearranged to flow better. --StanZegel (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Stan on this. Addressing this issue should come in the LCMS article. Walther's only concern was to set the record straight on what the Bible had to say about it. He did not want to justify the institution of slavery in this country. Other issues that might come to play in this, though, are 1) the reintroduction of slavery in Western Civilization through the subjugation of the African continent from the 17-19 centuries, 2) the morally reprehensible manner in which slaves were treated, and 3) the inherent prejudice of fiding a racial difference between Africans and Europeans sanctioning the enslavement of Africans and not Europeans. However, these matters do not impinge on biblical doctrine but in the domain of the 5th Commandment. If the slaveholders were Christian they might be asked to look at St. Paul's Letter to Philemon. Just some thoughts that are germane drboisclair 18:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Help with copyright issues

Bob, could you join the fun on the Talk:Martin Luther and Antisemitism Babajobu is wondering about the copyright issues in On the Jews and Their Lies. He says that we can still link to that site that posts it even though they may be violating copyright. Your expertise here is greatly needed. Blessings, Dave. drboisclair 17:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Babajobu has sought out proper authority and he is satisfied that "the link stays off" as you have endeavored to maintain. God bless! drboisclair 19:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Continued edit re: Antisemitism/Antijudaism

Thank you, Bob, for your leadership in resolving this matter. It is in Wikipedia Luther's best interest that we be balanced on this. I think that we need to be as mindful of copyright issues: it is so easy to simply link up to things on the internet. I think that we have a well-balanced and fair presentation. However, we do have this new anonymous editor, who wants to continue to interject the above distinction, which is used by the ELCA. The ELCA, though, thinks of the distinction as one becoming the other. To them what used to be "Antijudaism" is now "Antisemitism." I think the way that you and we have framed the paragraph directs one to the 20th Century debate rather than dabble in the fine distinction between the two "antis". That is another story as the saying goes. P.S. I will contact Bob Kolb about the article and ask him to look over it. I will also ask Dr. Schumacher to look over it: he did his dissertation on Luther and the new Finnish theology of Luther. Blessings, Dave. drboisclair 14:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm convinced of the Anti-Judaic position, BTW. Luther's rhetoric against all his opponents, even his friends, is just as caustic.

I really need to skim "The fabricated luther" to see what we can add to the Hitler era info.

Bob --CTSWyneken 17:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I took the liberty of deleting the "controversial" sentences and part of the caption. I think that you gave a spirited defense of what we are trying to do here. We do not venture into areas in which we are unfamiliar; however, sometimes as in "Star Trek" we boldly go where no one has gone before. SDG. Dave drboisclair 21:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Luther's Titles

Thank you, Bob, for changing the Doctor in Biblia to Doctor of Theology. I went to the St. Louis Sem library this afternoon, and I saw what you were saying in vol. 1 of WA Briefwechsel, the letter of Luther to Albert of Mainz. He calls himself Doctor of Sacred Theology or simply Doctor of Theology. Obermann bears us out on the "in Biblia" being his chair at the U of Wittenberg. I guess that you heard from Rev./Mr. Russel on this. You were right. drboisclair 20:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

No, haven't heard back from Russell yet.

--CTSWyneken 20:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Points of view

Please be careful not to push any particular point of view at the Martin Luther article. The quibble about whether indulgences were "purchased" is a case in point. [1]

Rather than insisting that they were or were not "sold", it would be better to quote sources who advanced either of these points of view.

Say that A called the practice "selling indulgences", and that B objected to the idea that indulgence was for sale, arguing that the required donations were . . .

Needless to say A and B are not Wikipedians but historians or religious scholars or some such.

If you need help with this, call on me. I've been here 4 years and am one of the best NPOV writers around. Uncle Ed 23:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Love

I think that the important thing is to communicate what you wrote on my talk page, in the article. Also, to simplify things, (1) Bloom is suggesting that for Jews, "love" is fundamentally "justice," wheraes for Christians, it is fundamentally "charity." If there are ANY Christians who would agree with this, they should be cited. And if there are Christians who have taken issue with this, they too should be cited. (2) My sources stress the relationship for Jews between "love" and "law," that is, the Jewish notion of "love" is the basis for, the justification for, and is actually achieved, through observing all the law (the 613 commandments in the Torah, and the body of law in the Talmud). How does Christian thought differ from this (again, acknowledging that there are different views -- different interpretations of Paul's epistles and statements about Jewish law, and also later theologians understanding of the place of law in the Church, whether for them any Church law is fundamentally about "love" or something else? If Jews express their love for God and their neighbors by observing Jewish law (e.g. keeping kosher), how do Christians express their love? Maybe these are things you, or someone else, can address? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Your intention of drawing on CS Lewis sounds very promising — thank you. However, I do not understand what you mean when you say "We love God by obeying both the spirit and the letter of the law." To my knowledge, Christians do not circumcise themselves (at least, not because it is commanded in the Torah); Christians do not have separate dishes for milk and meat; Christians do not make sure that all of the blood is drained from an animal before eating it (indeed, I think that there are devout Christians who eat blood sausage); Christians do not abstain from eating pork; Christians do burn fires and use electricity and write on the Sabbath ... in short, it seems to me that Christians do not obey the law at all. And if you really think they do, then what Christians think the law is and what Jews think the law is is radically different. And if there is a strong link between love and law, and Christians have a different notion of law, then they must also have a different notion of love. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Your comment was neither long nor preachy; it was very informative and appreciated. Your account of the Jewish view of law is largely correct (there are some nuances you leave out but they are not necessary at this level of discussion. You should know that while Jews do not contrast "civil law" to "universal law," they do distinguish between God's commandments and laws specifically for the jews, and "universal" laws for all humankind. By the way, the universal laws are NOT the 10 commandments. See Noahide laws. Jews also believe that it is very possible for people to observe all of the law (not that it is easy, just that anyone willing to study and act consciously can do it, and do it all). I don't know of any published Jewish sources that discuss Jesus' words on divorce and murder. I imagine that a Jewish historian would say that at the time Jesus lived, there was no consensus among all Jews as to how to observe "the law" and that Jesus' interpretations were well within the realm of possible Jewish interpretations, but that his interpretations, like many others (those of the Essenes and Saducees, for example), did not appeal to the majority of Jews, and were inconsistent with the corpus of Jewish law and interpretation that became hegemonic among Jews after the destruction of the Temple. Now, as to why most Jews did not follow Jesus's teachings, and why they are incompatible with Rabbinic law, that is another question and I would only be speculating. One guess is that Jesus cared more about intentions than effects; the Rabbis were the opposite, caring more about effects than intentions. But that is just a guess and I wish I knew of some literature that explored this.

In any event, I think this has been a very fruitful discussion and we both have a clearer idea of the differences between Judaism and Christianity in this regard. I leave it to you to decide how to incorporate this discussion, at least insofar as it highlights important elements of Christianity that are not shared by Jews, into the article. I don't mean to put all the burden on you, but the section on the Jewish view of love is now very long, and the Christian section is very short. I just think it is only fair that the Christian views be given the same amount of attention and explication, even though I am obviously not qualified to do it. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

CTSWyneken, I agree with you. Even as our views differ at times, I believe that our continuing dialog and constructive collaboration would (and I hope will) produce a compromise. On the content of the article, I will write in its Talk page. Regards. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 22:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Re:Jewish affairs, I have no clue, will try to find out. I am against simply harvesting quotes. That way, we can prove even that the earth is flat. The bigger question is, is/was that a notable view among scholars? If it is a fringe view, we don't. Of course an affected group (e.g. Jewish voices) deserves to be represented. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 03:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Infant Baptism

Greetings. Could you take a look at the Lutheran section in the Infant Baptism article? I've given a go at massaging it, but it isn't coming out well (given what was there to start with), and thus may need a complete rewrite. I know it came from the LCMS pages, but even so...it's pretty weak. I think that, perhaps, using the definition for the RCC and Orthodox while making clear the difference in the understanding of Justification might be the best way to go. Thank you! -Rekleov 15:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Luthor

I am afraid that I am in transit and do not have access to a library. But I would think that some press has published the collected works of Martin Luthor. I am afraid I cannot help you now, Slrubenstein | Talk 01:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Affairs

It might be this: Jewish Affairs Magazine, 235 W 23rd St, New York, NY 10011-2302, (212) 989-4994 Jayjg ^(talk) 01:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I had time to do some more checking. Consistent with what Jayjg wrote, I believe that Jewish Affairs is the journal (or magazine) put out by the Office of Jewish Information, American Jewish Congress. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, friends. I'll contact them in the next week or so. --CTSWyneken 11:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

95 theses

No problem!  :)

--ZekeMacNeil 04:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Please pare down quotation if you wish

Dear CTS, I have quoted Luther in extenso in order to present the quotation that they want in context, c.f. Martin Luther and the Jews. You may wish to revise it, and I welcome you to do any revising you want to do. I am bewildered and disappointed that persons like Doright have their way.drboisclair 13:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

possible request for coment

I am inclined to let it slide because I think I am dealing with a nut-case. But do you consider this (the last sentence) an anti-Semitic threat? [2] Slrubenstein | Talk 19:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

How do you think I should handle it? I am not sure that it is worth the trouble of requesting mediation. It's just that I am getting pretty pissed-off at this fellow. Would you be willing to explain to him what he is doing wrong (if, that is, you do think he is doing something wrong)? I ask because I fear I lack the detachment and peace of mind just now to do so in a constructive fashion. Either way, sorry to bother you. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 20:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice - I do appreciate it. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I certinly look forward to that! Slrubenstein | Talk 20:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Neo-Lutheranism

Pastor Smith,

Some time ago, I created a stub article on high church Lutheranism. I gave it the name that I had read was appropriate for such a form of Lutheranism--namely, Neo-Lutheranism. An Episcopalian user who studied in the Concordia Universities system contests this terminology, arguing that it is POV and meant to denigrate the movement. I am not an expert on Lutheranism (though I am a high churchman and a member of a church in full communion with the ELCIC) and I was simply using the term that I understood to be correct. This user has changed the articles title in the lead sentence and is "appealing" to the "powers that be" to move the article, evidently not realising that he can do so himself. He refuses to allow "Neo-Lutheranism to be even mentioned alongside his preferred terms ("High Church Lutheranism" and "Evangelical Catholicism"). Perhaps you can weigh in on this, since you are grounded in Lutheran history.

Many thanks,

Carolynparrishfan 22:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Luthers less than felicitous writings on the Jews

Sorry, have been out of the running for a bit, will take a look at the talk page and add some points if necessary, kind regards & God bless, --Isolani 18:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

What a snakepit! As far as I can tell, you stayed well within the bounds of reason, of course statements holding Luther accountable for the Kristallnacht 400 years later are completely absurd, there seem to be a few editors out there who have 'scores to settle'. Keep up the good work, God bless, --Isolani 20:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

If you need any translating done out of German, I`m quite willing to give it a try, have earlier translated philosophical texts from German into Dutch and English, can`t promise you I can get to it any time soon though, made an edit on the main page concerning one "scholar".

Thanks, Isolani! It could take quite some time to translate the whole thing (it runs 140 pp. in the WA). Let's see what the folk working on these pp. will want to do. Perhaps several can work on it. --CTSWyneken 14:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyright question

Hello Rev., what materials are on Wikipedia that you believe are infringing? -- Cecropia 00:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, now I know what we are talking about, but though I've read the argument on the article talk page, I'm not sure where the infringement is supposed to be. Do you mean that the page being linked to is, in itself, infringing? And if so, who or what is the valid owner of a copyright that is being infringed? If it's not the page being linked to, what else is being infringed? -- Cecropia 01:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Bob, looking at the situation more closely, are you saying that it is the pages at Fordham U. that are infringing? -- Cecropia 01:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Now I understand what we are talking about. At the outset let me say that I have (for a variety of reasons) some amount of experiuence with Intellectual Property but IANAL. At any rate, the following are my opinions.

It seems to me there are three issues going on. If we link, is it legal? is it ethical? is it a violation of Wikipedia policy. Ordinarily a "yes" to any of those would be enough to pull the link.

1. Is it legal for us to link? I would say it probably is. Linking rights, even so-called "deep linking" have been upheld in U.S. courts. IOW, it is legal to link so long as you are in no way obscuring the place you are linking to. For example, if you embed a photo on your web page on someone else's server in such a way that it looks like your own picture, that's prohibited. But if you supply a link to a page on someone else's site, and don't do something (like framing) to make it look like it's on your site, that's OK. In this case, we don't seem to have definitive word that fordham doesn't have the right to republish, and if we did, that would lead us to:
2. Is it ethical to use the link? If we KNOW it's a pirated page, it might not be ethical to link. But do we know this? It would seem reasonable to ask the proprietor of the Fordham page how he came by and whether he has permission to use it. By extension, though, that raises another moral issue, if we know for a fact the Fordham pages are infringing, should we tell the copyright owners about the page for their own action?
3. Is it a violation of Wikipedia policy? I can't say for sure and though I have some respect here, I'm not competent to have a useful opinion in this case. I would email Jimmy Wales ([email protected]), describe the circumstances, and ask for his judgment. In this Wikidemocracy, some would say he doesn't have the last word either, but I'm certain he will respond and give you the best answer.

Speaking for myself, it would be good if we could point knowledge-seekers to this work if it is legal, ethical and policy. I think we should know rather than assume we are abating an infringer before denying users this valuable work. Kind regards, Cecropia 05:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

More on the copyright issue

Looking at the material on Talk:On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies_(Martin_Luther)#Copyright_and_On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies.

Am I to understand that this issue is based on the fact that the translation was first published and copyrighted in 1955 (but not renewed in 1983) and also included verbatim in a new work copyrighted 1971? If that is the case, I can state my non-lawyerly opinion that the translation is in the public domain. Republication of a work does not, in and of itself, extend the copyright. If it could, writers and their descendents could copyright a work ad infitium by simply publishing it again, with a new copyright notice, while a prior copyright was still valid. So if the valid holder of the copyright did not file an extension certificate with the Copyright Office in 1983, that is the end of the copyright.

You will notice that a lot of public domain works (or works containing public domain works) bear current copyright notices. These notices only cover the new works of authorship contained therein, such as a preface, notes, evaluations, etc. Of course someone wishing to reproduce the public domain portion of such works must be confident that they are the same as the original. For example, if I were to publish a new version of Hamlet, and I modernized the most obscure parts of the language, someone copying my version would be in violation of copyright if they published their work with my changes. -- Cecropia 08:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Response to your latest on copyright

Thank you for your most recent elaboration--you certainly know how to dot your 'i's and cross your "t"s.

I completely agree with your analysis that the volume cited is in copyright and that we ought not to link to it. Having said that, what do we (as Wikipedians) do with it? The following part of Wikipedia policy after the "Linking to copyrighted works" section says that "It is not the job of rank-and-file Wikipedians to police content for possible copyright infringement, but if you suspect one, you should at the very least bring up the issue on that page's talk page", which you have done, extensively.

At this point I sympathize with your ethical compulsion to remove the links but see this as fruitless in the face of so much opposition, though I don't think the discussion need be abandoned. As an aside, you made the point that "if you were to buy a TV from a fence, should you say: 'But I didn't steal it?'" A more apt comparison is the position of someone who announces to his co-workers "there's a guy outside selling TVs from the back of his station wagon." Working in NYC for many years I was exposed to that sort of thing multiple times. It might satisfy you to know that in one such situation a lot of the fellows, including both owners, raced out to buy sealed boxes of TVs at $50 a pop, some buying them for friends and family as well. When one of them opened a box so they could plug a TV in and watch it at lunch, he found an empty TV cabinet and some weights inside. I'm sure it was said long before, but I know Leslie Charteris used to like to point out that a successful con depends on the willingness of the mark to engage in illegal activity.

Having amused you (I hope) with anecdotes, I'll return to the point. At this point, I think the most economical course of action would be to email Mr. Wales and get his take on it. His response will back up (or torpedo) any further action in the discussion.

I can't leave this topic without commenting on Fordham's stance, a Catholic university, no less. I see them as morally, ethically, and legally wrong on this matter. They are taking the "we only provide the space" argument. I imagine they might also claim a "free speech" or "academic freedom" issue. Most web hosts have a user agreement that specifies that the user will not post material that violates law. Even if they don't they are not immune from the action of law. This has been noted especially in the tolerence of child pornography. So far it would seem that you cannot attack a host if someone puts up kiddie porn, but once the host is made aware of it, they must remove it or be a partner in the crime. Fordham's stance is exacerbated by two factors, IMO. First, the material is posted under their URL, creating an impression of official status, and second, the poster is no longer associated with them. This means both that they are hosting something for someone who is now an "outsider," as it were, and that the poster is unreachable through Fordham to be confronted on the infringement. -- Cecropia 17:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I have posted my opinion on the topic talk page. Cheers, Cecropia 23:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Doright

Please bear with me until I have a chance to look into this. If Doright is violating Wikipedia rules, then an RfC might be the appropriate course. To mount an RfC at least two users must attempt to engage the editor, preferally on his/her talk page to set out what the grievance is with the editor and ask that it be remedied. If these attempts fail or are rebuffed, an RfC may be mounted to gather the community's opinion and possibly suggest or require remedies. -- Cecropia 00:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Have you considered asking an arbitrator (not the ArbCom, one of those willing to help) to mediate as a first step? -- Cecropia 01:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. I haven't availed myself of the process so was fishing for what it is called. It's mediation, and you can read all about it at Wikipedia:Mediation. The text there suggests you contact the other and ask if they would enter mediation. If the other refuses, the next step would have to be an RfC, I imagine. Before going to that step, though, I would suggest contacting one or more of the mediators (their names are on the linked page I provided) to see if one of them would intercede with Doright to try to start a mediation. As to RfC (or ArbCom), I almost never even look at these processes any more because they sometimes seem to me like the world's most verbose and tedious Kangaroo Courts. That is, it's always best to see if something can be resolved with a minimum of mechanism. Still, no one should have to put up with personal attacks. So why don't you see if you can get a mediator to help? -- Cecropia 03:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Going over my talk, I see you wanted me to look over some of your actions or writing on this subject. Can you provide me with links as to exactly what you think I should look at. -- Cecropia 03:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Luther quote

Thanks for finding that Luther quote. That's just what I was looking for! I also found the sermons online here. --Flex 14:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Martin Luther

I have recently moved and am pretty overwhelmed right now, so it may take me a few days, but I do want to respond to your request, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Cut and paste

I don't know of any specific rules on cut and paste from user pages. Are your referring the information at the bottom of the "Jews and their Lies" talk? I really don't understand what's being quoted or how they bear on the issue. -- Cecropia 03:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

==Category:Antisemitism (People)

Up for deletion again - Cordially SirIsaacBrock

Doright

I have been swamped for the past few weeks and have little time for Wikipedia. I hope this will begin changing, soon, and I will try to track the situation you describe. I just looked at two of the pages and it appears for now at least that you have things under control (I didn't see a lot of long and time confusing talk from Doright, nor did I see many recent edits. It appears that he wanted to add anti-Semitism as a category to the article on the Jews and their Lies - do you object to that? Why? Or am I missing something?). Anyway, I will check in but unless he does something again I don't feel ready to say anything to him. But keep me posted on any more recent activity along the lines you called my attention to, Slrubenstein | Talk 18:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Commentary on St. John?

Reverend-- I've seen a purported quote from Martin Luther in the "sixteenth chapter" of his "Commentary on St. John:" "We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all." It looks too good to be true. Did Luther even write a commentary on St. John? Is this a real quote? Thanks.--Jbull 05:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help.

The cite as used on the Internet is as vague as above. But it's only found on Catholic sites, which made me suspicious that it is made up.

If I have not made it clear before, I have enormous respect for Luther as a theologian, and I recognize his Peter-like complexity.

Thanks again--Jbull 19:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

After more research, I've concluded that the quote, if real, comes from one of Luther's sermons on John 16. But that's just an educated guess.--Jbull 19:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Josel of Rosheim

Hi, thanks for your note, Sorry I don't have any of Josel's texts. I don't have a clue what is "Gelehrter" but I think I got the idea. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Lutheran Wikipedians

I was wondering if you would consider adding your user page to this category. As I am currently the only user in this category, I'm feeling a bit lonely. archola 16:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Got both your messages

Hi Bob. I left Doright a message. Please do what you feel is proper. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)