Talk:On the Jews and Their Lies/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Responding to Apologetics for antisemitism

The rhetoric of this article betrays POV concerns. William Shirer is not a Luther scholar; hence, some of the data are inaccurate. This article should present more information on the treatise's contemporary composition. drboisclair 02:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• drboisclair, the empty rhetoric of the Luther apologetics for antisemitism betrays POV concerns. For example your absurd complaint about William Shirer. The William Shirer citation is directly from the English language translation of On the Jews and Their Lies translated by Martin H. Bertram and found in the hard cover edition of "Luther's Works," Volume 47, pages 137-306. The translator/editors of Luther's Works, themselves, cite the William Shirer quote. It appears that according to you a Luther scholar is only one that conforms to your extreme POV. Apparently the editors of "Luther's Works" are not Luther scholars according to you because they cite William Shirer an authority. The very book you and CTSWyneken seek to suppress provide the following reference: William H. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1960), 430 ff. see On The Jews and Their lies foonote 173.Doright 23:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, Mr. Doright, simply quoting a person does not establish them in the eyes of the quoting entity as an authority. William Shirer is a popular disseminator of information to the public and is not an "authority" by any means. You need to mature in your research gathering. You need to re-examine your own POV. drboisclair 20:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Excuse me, Mr. drboisclair, but you, like CTSWynekenas have a documented track record of commenting on and censoring research you have not even read. Of course, this does not stop you from speculating that the editors of "Luther's Works," might have some reason for citing someone who is according to you, not an authority. So tell me, why did the editors of the widely referenced Luther's Works cite a "non-authority?" It is an absurdity to suggest that they cited him in this particular context for any reason other than that he is an authority. Really, you need to mature in your research gathering by actually doing some research and slow down a bit on the rhetorical speculations. You need to re-examine your own POV.Doright 01:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyright and On the Jews and Their Lies

(Copied from Talk:Martin Luther and the Jews)

This entire section was copied, edited and unsigned by CTSWyneken on Dec 22, 2005 PLEASE SEE [1] [2] [3] [4] Stop Trying to hide the truth CTSWyneken Stop Deleting Links to Fordham University and other Scholarly Sources that are in the Public Domain for unedited version that includes REFUTATION of CTSWyneken's Original Research and attempts to limit Wiki users online access to documents published by respected Universities. Doright 22:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Status

Verso of the Title Page, Luther's Works, Vol. 47, "The Christian in Society": (c) 1971 Fortess Press, Library of Congress Number 55-9893, ISBN 0 8006 0347 8

Laura N. Gasaway, J.D. (Director of the Law Library, Professor of Law, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill), "WHEN U.S. WORKS PASS INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN": "Published from 1964 - 77, When published with notice, 28 years for first term; now automatic extension of 67 years for second term." http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm [5]

Therefore, Augsburg Fortress is correct; the still hold the copyright in this work.--CTSWyneken 15:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Online searches not sufficient to establish status

Warning from US Copyright Office on trusting the office's records: "Searches of the Copyright Office catalogs and records are useful in helping to determine the copyright status of a work, but they cannot be regarded as conclusive in all cases. The complete absence of any information about a work in the Office records does not mean that the work is unprotected." [6]

Project Gutenberg: "Rule 6 in the Copyright HOW-TO describes the situation in which an item copyrighted between 1923 and 1963 may be in the public domain if it was not renewed. (Items from 1964 and afterwards were automatically renewed; items prior to 1923 are in the public domain.)" http://promo.net/pg/vol/howto6.html [7] The volume in Which "On the Jews..." appears was published in 1971. --CTSWyneken 15:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Publisher claims never gave permission

I called the publisher. To verify, You are welcome to call Augsburg Fortress also. http://www.augsburgfortress.org/copyrights/contact.asp [8]

I have an inquiry in to Fordham as well. Will report back what they say. --CTSWyneken 15:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC) --CTSWyneken 15:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I contacted Augsburg Fortress, and they have indicated to me that they have never given permission to post "On the Jews and Their Lies" translated by Martin Bertram on the internet. The copyright is some 16 years more recent than the first volumes of Luther's Works, so the copyright still stands. drboisclair 15:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Short quotes fair use

Short quotations and excerpts, however, are fair use. I can provide links, if anyone would find that helpful. --CTSWyneken 11:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Quote from WP:COPY

Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. Whether such a link is contributory infringement is currently being debated in the courts, but in any case, linking to a site that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us.--CTSWyneken 01:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Report of Conversation with Forham University

Staff members report that Forham University is not responsible for the content of the Internet History Sourcebook. They host these documents for Dr. Paul Halsall, who is no longer with the University. I have initiated an attempt to reach him. --CTSWyneken 00:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Quote from WP:OR

Research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. --CTSWyneken 00:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Also note that a talk page is not an article. It is a place to explain why edits and additions are made or suggests such. --CTSWyneken 00:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

POV Concerns

Proper, full source citations are badly needed here. The language makes unsupported claims and where it does quote authors and scholars, does not give the full publication's info: Author, Title, Place, Publisher, date and pages. In addition, external links to copyright infringing works should not be used. (see quote above from WP:COPY --CTSWyneken 11:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. If this article is to stay (of which I am not convinced yet), it needs to describe/discuss the book in an encyclopedic manner - of course this doesn't mean to praise it. It is possible to have good quality NPOV articles on controversial books and WP does have them. For me, boldfonts and harsh language only make the text less convincing. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

CTSWyneken, Concern with proper citations is nice. However, then you falsify the citations provided by other editors. Stripping the citation, as you did, of the authority it garners by being cited in "Luther's Works," you diminish its authority. POV so extreme that leads to plagiarizing references surely cannot be considered proper. Please correct your falsification of the reference you edited in the first paragraph. The citation was clearly to On The Jews and Their Lies footnote 173 in "Luther's Works." I even had a link to it so that it would be completely unambiguous. Of course, you removed that too. Doright 17:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, this is similar to the intellectual dishonesty and misrepresentation exposed here. [9].Doright 18:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to be with Wikipedia longer for you to level judgments and accusations. drboisclair 20:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Drboisclair, as already documented by the excuses you provided here[[10]] that you still have not even looked at the evidence. Perhaps it would be proper for you to "vacate" your comments here as well as you did on your talk page that was then immediately archived?Doright 19:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Reference Checking

I have checked and corrected the reference in the first paragraph.

Also, I checked the reference to the Nuremberg Trials. The text from which it was scanned is a publication of the United States government, hence in the public domain. The Avalon Project copyright pertains only to the web view of this text and not the underlying words. This link is acceptable. --CTSWyneken 20:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Move

The "Their" in the title should be capitalized. Badagnani 21:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 06:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, or merge with Martin Luther and the Jews. I question whether a separate article is needed for the work. --CTSWyneken 22:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• • CTS, of course you do. Perhaps you also question whether a separate article is needed for Mein Kampf. Doright 18:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Please note Humus also holds a similar view. Perhaps it would be best to list reasons why, since the Martin Luther and the Jews article contains more information about this text than this article that it is necessary to have it. --CTSWyneken 19:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• It has been proposed below that On the Jews and Their Lies be renamed and moved to On the Jews and Their Lies. Move done to correct (t)heir to (T)heir. Doright 18:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Original Research

The first two sentences have completely subjective, uncited and unverifiable claims. A citation from a scholar is needed or they should be deleted. --CTSWyneken 19:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Having removed the POV rhetoric we may then remove the flags, although rework is constantly appreciated. drboisclair 21:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

There is still POV, uncited rhetoric in the first paragraph. I'll take a look at it in a week or so. --CTSWyneken 12:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes the tone of sentences can convey POV as you might have gathered. The goal is to be as objectively NPOV as possible. drboisclair 19:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Censorship

Dear CTSWyneken, Drboisclair, StanZegel you boys can’t have it both ways. You can’t complain that I engage in original research and demand that "a citation from a scholar is needed or they should be deleted" AND THEN delete the references to the scholars when I start to provide them. Really, you guys are too much. Stop censoring contributions that don’t comply with your POV.Doright 07:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The citation added would be fine with me, if it actually supported the sentence to which it was attached. It does not. So far, I find the statement beginning with: "Most scholars..." unsupported by a quote or a citation from a scholar. If the sentence is replaced with the actual words of the cited work are inserted here, preferably in the body of the article, then a scholar from a different point of view will be cited, but I can accept its presence, if the man quoted is a scholar. --CTSWyneken 12:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

CTSWyneken, this is nonsense. There is no statement beginning with: "Most scholars... ."

Correction: Beginning with... "is regarded by scholars of anti-Semitism." --CTSWyneken 16:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

StanZegel deleted the reference and now you claim that Rappaport, S. Martin Luther and the Jews 1984 Jewish Affairs 39, 1 (Jan 1984) 19-23 does not support the sentence, "Martin Luther's treatise, On the Jews and Their Lies (1543) is regarded by scholars of anti-Semitism as one of the most anti-Semitic documents ever published." Rappaport says:

There is little that the Nazis said and did that cannot be found in Luther's anti-Jewish writings. In "The Jews and Their Lies" Luther incorporated most of the calumnies against the Jews known in his day. The Nazis republished excerpts.

So, tell me, in your minds (StanZegel, Drboisclair, CTSWyneken) how does "In The Jews and Their Lies Luther incorporated most of the calumnies against the Jews known in his day," and "there is little that the Nazis said and did that cannot be found in Luther's anti-Jewish writings," relate to the sentence?Doright 18:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The quotation itself does not say: "one of the most anti-Semitic documents ever published." It says: "incorporated most of the calumnies against the Jews known in his day." To footnote it as from this source is misleading. If a source can be found that says this, a footnote to it is appropriate. If one cannot be found, then the sentence should go in favor of one that reflects or quotes this writer. One that disagrees with that opinion can then be added to bring balance to the article. --CTSWyneken 19:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

StanZegel, Drboisclair, CTSWyneken, You have never even read the writer. Your claim is that the sentence does not "relect or quote the writer." Exactly, how is it that you know that it does not reflect the writer? It strains credulity to imagine that the three of you are acting in good faith when you censor work a priori and attempt to justify it by claiming that the work does not reflect the writer when in fact YOU HAVE NEVER EVEN READ THE WRITER.Doright 02:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, it is not wise to assume that I have not read this article. I have not, but intend to -- assuming that some library somewhere holds the issue it is in. This is proving difficult, for it seems there are a number of periodicals that go by the name "Jewish Affairs." None of them, however, match the volume and year number given in the citation. But I am a librarian and I have a way of getting a hold of written work. I'll find it eventually.

Second, I'm assuming for the moment that the quotation above and that was in the footnote before it was deleted is accurately transcribed. These quotations do not say what the article says in the sentence it was given as a reference to. Perhaps the author somewhere else in his article says what our article says. If so, why not produce that? Very simply, we need a scholar to say it was "one of the most anti-Semitic documents ever published" if we are to leave it in the article. --CTSWyneken 04:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Now that you have admitted that you have not even read the article, you have not addressed the point of "Exactly, how is it that you know that it does not reflect the writer?" It strains credulity to imagine that the three of you are acting in good faith when you censor work a priori and attempt to justify it by claiming that the work does not reflect the writer when in fact YOU ADMIT THAT YOU HAVE NEVER EVEN READ THE WRITER. So your criteria now change, it no longer matters that the sentence meets your original criteria of “reflect or quote the writer.” Now only quotations are permissible according to you. Shall we apply the same quotation only criteria to the CTSWyneken, Drboisclair, StanZegel group as well or does this only apply to works that you don’t like??Doright 04:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:RS strongly suggests that a source be available to other editors to check. Since as a librarian, I have been unable to locate a copy of the periodical in which this article appeared, I cannot verify it. Can anyone tell me where I can get a copy? --CTSWyneken 04:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

StanZegel, Censorship and demonstrated bad faith are a bad combo. You say regarding your censorship, "... it is a problem, and I think the best way to deal with these high school kids with such bad attitudes is to ignore and not respond to them. Perhaps in a few years they may acquire some maturity, but in the meanwhile they are not worth the time to explain why their edits are reverted ... Is this not a wiki violation?Doright 04:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I am opposed to censorship as is StanZegel, a longtime Wikipedian, and CTSWyneken, also a longtime Wikipedian. I am for balance and information from reputable sources. One should avoid imputing bad motives to people when there is no proof. drboisclair 12:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Respectfully Drboisclair, it's easy to wrap yourself in the flag of free speech. However, your saying there is no proof does not mean there is no proof. This is comical. As I've documented elsewhere, including in your now archived talk page, you willfully choose to ignore all evidence and fabricate excuses from whole cloth. What, in your mind would constitute "proof."Doright 21:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Respectfully Drboisclair, purging the article of 100% of its content is hardly evidence of your opposition to censorship. Evidence of this conduct is at this link. [11]Doright 07:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully Drboisclair, your deleting the properly sourced citing of On the Jews and Their Lies at the Nazi Nuremberg Trials under the guise of "Properly categorizing article" [[12]] can not be considered good form. Please restore the various works that you and your mates have deleted from the article.Doright 07:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

CTSWyneken, exactly what does it mean when you explicitly recruit Lutherans as Lutherans to push your censorship? CTSWyneken, you say, "could you do me a favor and look in on the Talk page of Martin Luther and the Jews." You continue, "It is proving very difficult, since I'm the sole Lutheran voice here at the moment."[[13]] What does recruiting "Lutheran voices" have to do with proper scholarship? And then just yesterday you write to this fellow "Lutheran Voice," "Thanks for the Luther Page Revert" [[14]]. Please engage in scholarship and not censorship. Regards, Doright 08:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Need for Balance

I have included a quotation from a known Luther scholar Roland Bainton. It gives some balance to this neutrality plagued article. drboisclair 12:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Move to "The Jews and Their Lies"

Shouldn't this article be moved to "The Jews and Their Lies" since the book is entitled "The Jews and Their Lies"? __earth 13:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Forget it. =) __earth 13:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the better translation of the title is "About the Jews and Their Lies" --StanZegel (talk) 14:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Starting Over

Articles are supposed to be submitted as NPOV from the beginning, not as partisan positions from which NPOV eventually arrives after much reediting and oscillations between opposing POVs. See WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox. It is easier to start this article afresh and allow it to be gradually added to in an NPOV manner than to try to take out all the POV items one-by-one, or to list the article for deletion. --StanZegel (talk) 02:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The material that had been in this article concerned contemporary reaction and use of this document. It did not define the writing in question. Happily the material in Martin Luther and the Jews actually defines the document as to why it was written and what its content actually is. drboisclair 13:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Copyright of Martin Luther's Works Topic Updated

Fellow editors:

I've put all the current information on the copyright of Martin's Luther's On the Jews and Their Lies into the copyright topic page. For future reference, I'll put anything new I discover there and will answer questions about the status of this and other works at that location. --CTSWyneken 16:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Who Died and made you King, Please Stop deleting links to other Scholars

This is your POV as a wikipedian. As a wikipedian, your POV has no place in deleting wikipedia content or links. The scholars responsible for the content of this widely cited and respected web resource at this world renown university clearly do not agree with your POV. They say, "This text is part of the Internet Medieval Source Book. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts related to medieval and Byzantine history." [[15]] You have already stated that you had previously contacted them and shared your opinion with them. And, they have not complied with your demands. Nor should we. Who died and made you king? It is improper for you to block access to this important historical document made available online by respected scholars at Fordham University. Please respect the opinion of scholars that do not agree with you. Furthermore, the publisher is fully capable of directly contacting Fordham University or us if he agrees with your opinion. Respectfully, please stop censoring.Doright 23:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the advantages of virtual anonymity!drboisclair 23:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Reworking this article

I have done research, and I would like to provide a preliminary article on this document. I have taken the advice of senior editors in using other articles as templates for this article. My apologies for making changes before consultation with other editors. I have reverted my edits. drboisclair 21:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The exerpt in the Medieval Source Book Are sufficient

An editor has once again made direct links to websites that may have infringed copyright. The exerpts page from the Medieval Source Book provide a link to it if the interested reader wants to follow it. Wikipedia stands against copyright infringment. drboisclair 22:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The reason this is POV

Firstly, I think Luther was an amazing man but cannot condone his anti-Semitism. However, the reason that this article is not NPOV is because it starts with the debate and does not discuss the contents of the writing! What exactly did he write? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

One of the reasons for the proposed merger. There is some helpful discussion of the merger proposal at Talk:Martin Luther and the Jews. Be sure to use the table of contents to get to the section. There is a ... vigorous ... discussion on that talk page. This is one of the reasons why this article has received so little attention lately. --CTSWyneken 11:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Ta bu shi da yu, Welcome to the discussion and thank you for your cogent observation. As you can see here [[16]], it only took the censors a couple hours until they deleted my response to your comment by providing scholarly excerpts of "exactly" what he wrote. Those excerpts were made by the referenced scholar at Fordham University[[17]]. However, there is repeated censorship by a certain Self Defined Group[[18]] of wikipedians attempting to impose their orthodox doctrine to maintain the "purity of Luther's essence." I would like to encourage your participation. As you can see above they are even trying to delete the article by their proposed merge (which has been rejected by every senior wikipedian that has looked at the request). Regards,Doright 16:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Ta bu shi da yu, you hit the nail on the head about the article not discussing the content. Because of WP:COPY links to the two web pages in question are opposed. One could find the English translation of the document in Luther's Works vol. 47. I would think that any large library would have them. But to the point: since the material there is about twentieth century reaction to the book it needs to be properly captioned. This is a work in progress. drboisclair 17:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Please notice here how consistent logic is not important for censorship, only enforcement of dogma. Note, that just a day ago drboisclair argues on the article history page, "The exerpt in the Medieval Source Book Are sufficient," to support his deletion of links to the full text of the book here[[19]]. Then today, when the very same excerpts are included in this article (by permission of the excerptor for educational uses) he supports the censorship of the excerpts by StanZegel. Ta bu shi da yu, your contribution to the article will be greatly appreciated. Please feel free to edit the article. Regards,Doright 18:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Title

Whatever else we do with this article, it needs retitling. I came upon it (as any other person who doesn't know what the article contains) and wondered how such a POV topic wasn't speedied. IOW, it should be titled similar to one of the following:

On the Jew and Their Lies (mediaevil book)

On the Jew and Their Lies (treatise)

On the Jew and Their Lies (Martin Luther)

Sometimes a title must have context. -- Cecropia 19:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the article! Please hang around and help with this one and/or Martin Luther and the Jews and Martin Luther. We can use the assistance of an experienced editor on such an emotionally charged issue.

Re the title: Point well taken! Which is more common as a designator for books, tracts, etc. ID by type, by author, by genre, i.e. (Controversial Literature), (Polemic), etc. --CTSWyneken 19:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Welcome! I think the (treatise) modifier is the best in this case. --StanZegel (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Excerpts version from Medieval Source Book acceptible source

Quotations of and citations to On the Jews are acceptible, as is a link to it. Length of quotations and amount of it should keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia article and there are limits to how much should be here. However, there should not be a link to the full text, since it is against the wishes of the publisher that it be available on the internet. --CTSWyneken 19:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Actions on the article pages speaks louder than words in talk. Since you have not restored the deleted exerpts provided by Fordham University, and left absolutely nothing in it's place, one must conclude that your prefer there to be nothing rather than what in your POV is beyond the "limit." I remind you that this article is a sub-article of a sub-article of a sub-section of the Martin Luther article. Exactly at what point do you finally allow the reader to decide for themselves? The Fordham excertps are a tiny fraction of this important book and are designed by the Fordham excerptor to convey the meaning of a rather lenthly original text. Some things are so outrageous that the reader must see it to believe it.Doright 20:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Please reduce the vitriol

Speaking as an outside viewer of this controversy, I have to say that the aggressive tone and language being used is less-than-inspiring: "See Talk (who died and made you king?))", "Again, you boys can't have it both way.", "{...} admits bad faith censorship", etc. It's not productive and such phrases are never 'true'... the purpose of Wikipedia is to 'be bold', not 'be rude'.

Just a brief scan of the history for this article reveals a lot of vitriol, expounded upon with seeming glee on the talk page. For the benefit of the community, can you folks (all the folks on all sides of the debate) PLEASE make an extra effort to try to reduce the intentional confrontation and attacks? This is an encyclopedia, not a faith or anti-semitism encounter group. Thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for weighing in. Looking forward to your assistance.Doright 21:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You didn't respond to my request. Will you make an effort to help elevate the dialogue? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Excerpts

The vast swath of excerpts is making the article utterly unreadable. An inclusion of such a tract of content seems to be disrupting the article to prove a point (a no-no). The version before the re-introduction of the long scroll of excerpts seemed quite readable to me. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Welcome! I appreciate your assistance with this topic. Somewhere in the mess on the Martin Luther or the Martin Luther and the Jews page is a suggestion by Jayg that we pattern this article after other book articles in the wikipedia. Does that sound reasonable to you? If so, would you propose an outline? Also, I concur on the excerpts. I think some quotes from the book are useful, but not at the length they are now. I would be willing to have you suggest what should stay. --CTSWyneken 21:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't wanna just opine outta the blue, so I'll give the issues you raise some thought - re the excerpts: I can't see how 2 excerpts or so and a link to an online source for the rest wouldn't suffice to demonstrate, in Luther's own words, the nature of the content and controversy surrounding this book. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Another editor recently applied the NPOV flag and opined that the article should start with "exactly" what the author wrote. That made sense to me ... let the work speak for itself. Since, it had already been agreed that the Fordham excerpts are acceptable, I included it all so as not to introduce my own POV by "cherry picking," with the expectation that it may be reduced for readability. BTW, there is a long history on this article, its "parent" article and its grandparent article before I showed up where the selection of quotations from this books were quite contentious. Also, I do believe that this is the place to provide the maximum detail and most excerpts from the book, since it is already addressed in much less detail here martin luther and then with a bit more detail here martin luther and anti-semitismSo, I hope that the starting point provided by this independent third party at Fordham will be a fruitful starting point. Collegially,Doright 23:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia style and the opening para

The opening of every article is supposed to contain a single paragraph including the title of the article in boldface stating as briefly and concisely and neutrally as possible what the article in about. -- Cecropia 01:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Cecropia: I'm pressed for time at the moment, but wanted to stop and thank you for a nice job on this article. We are not done by far, but it is a very good start. --CTSWyneken 03:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. I hope you'll find my further contributions useful. -- Cecropia 05:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Clarification of my previous comment

I appreciate Doright attempting to rectify the problem that this article doesn't state what Luther actually wrote by adding in information about the tract. However, I was more thinking that we could summarise the material, in much the same way that I have attempted to for different article: USA PATRIOT Act, Title II. One of the problems with including the quotes is that the site it is taken from has the following copyright:

Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No permission is granted for commercial use.

This precludes the use of the translation in Wikipedia, regrettably. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Ta bu shi da yu, thanks for the clarification. However, Isn't wikipedia "non-commericial" and the purpose of the encyclopedia "educational" and therefore persmission is granted for electronic copying per your citation above?Doright 19:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

"Dr. Halsall states"

This reference under "Impetus for the thesis" must clearly and briefly describe who "Dr. Halsell" is (in the text, not a link) so we know why his opinion is important. From the text, Dr. Halsell might just as well be someone's veterinarian. -- Cecropia 17:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Merger discussion restarted at Martin Luther and the Jews

Dear Friends:

I've suggested on the Martin Luther and the Jews page that we reopen our discussion of merging this article into the larger one. Please come on by and express your opinion. --CTSWyneken 21:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Removal of inaccurate footnote

The footnote to D.G. Myers discussion blog for 2-18-98 has been removed because it is not the footnote for the material. It should be pointed out that any footnotes to the discussion log for this day should specify which of the three parts "Luther's Antisemitism" is cited. I wonder if perhaps formatting wise we could use a better way to reference. drboisclair 16:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Formal Requests to Doright

(Pursuant to the Wikipedia policy on Dispute Resolution, the following post made to User talk:Doright is also made here, on the discussion page of an article involved:)

Doright, I'm sure you would like to be taken seriously as an editor, but in the past few days discoveries have been made in some of your edits where you have represented words as coming from someone they haven't, and where you have quoted only portions of a statement with the effect of suppressing balancing views that the original author had stated and distorting the thought. Such actions are violations of WP:NPOV. Please read that section and other policies and follow them. Please stop making personal attacks upon other editors. Please stop placing inflammatory statements in edit summaries. Please stop the use of intemperate language in your postings. Please remember that you are expected to make an article balanced, not lop-sided with any POV. Please note that if you continue to infringe upon the rules of good conduct that disciplinary actions (including being banned) may be initiated against you. That would be unfortunate, and I ask you to conduct yourself in such a way that discipline will not become necessary, and that your edits can become a useful part of Wikipedia. --StanZegel (talk) 06:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur with this admonition, and I would urge it on the editor addressed here in this posting. drboisclair 14:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

StanZegel writes to drboisclair:

"Yes, it is a problem, and I think the best way to deal with these high school kids with such bad attitudes is to ignore and not respond to them. Perhaps in a few years they may acquire some maturity, but in the meanwhile they are not worth the time to explain why their edits are reverted and their baiting is ignored. We all have more valuable things to do than allow ourselves to be held hostage by typo terrorists. --StanZegel (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

"-Doright 01:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

StanZegel writes to CTSWyneken:

"An anonymous editor is like a sniper in a tree top, taking pot shots at those trying to do serious work on the ground, and dropping his waste matter into the work in progress. I'm not sure that anything such a person attempts to add is worth verifying but should be summarily deleted on the basis that a responsible person would identify himself. If the material is truly worthy, a responsible scholar will get around to adding it. In the present case, I believe we are dealing with a sock puppet for an editor who has been banned previously for similar activity and may be on probation right now. If so, that probation is being violated, and keeping his edits or wasting time on his "contributions" simply enables continuing violations.--StanZegel (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)"

-Doright 01:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Removing Merge Flag

Hearing no drumbeat for against merging the article, I am removing the merge flag. Let's see if we can make a go of this article. --CTSWyneken 01:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur with this action, and would urge continued work on cleaning up this article to conform to WP:NPOV. It is a work in progress. drboisclair 20:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Evolution of Luther's Views

I think this aspect of the topic is best left to the Martin Luther and the Jews article. Here we should follow the model of the Mein Kampf article, which, as Jayg suggested, really is well laid out and neutral in tone, remarkable in that most people think of it as one of the most evil works ever written. The background really should focus on the immediate reasons why Luther wrote this work. So, anything we say here on that topic should be short and to the point. --CTSWyneken 02:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Catagory Anti-Semitic People

Please see discussion on the Martin Luther page. --CTSWyneken 19:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality Flag

Dear Friends: Are there any objections to removing the neutrality flag here? While the article needs quite a bit of work, I think the balance is fairly close on the NPOV issues. --CTSWyneken 10:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe that it is all right now to remove the neutrality flag provided that cooler heads prevail in the ongoing working out of this article. I would urge editors to be vigilant against the intrusion of POV from any quarter. I pledge myself to NPOV and fairness. drboisclair 18:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Title

I moved this page to "On the Jews and Their Lies" because it's a stylistic standard to use the simplest title allowable. I can see why people decided to make it clear this was not simply a page preaching anti-Semitism, but I think:

a) the capitalization of the title alone makes it clear it's a proper name

b) the article makes it fairly clear from the start what it is about

c) there is generally insufficient grounds to make an exception to standards for this article

Thoughts? Sarge Baldy 04:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree on the all points. I performed the same move and was reverted (as I suppose Sarge Baldy also must have been). Perhaps a link to the lenghty discussion on the topic that I have been told was held before, should be posted here. // Habj 13:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

That may be wise. A summary: it was feared that people would confuse the title of Luther's work with the content of the article. In other words, that people would think wikipedia was saying the Jews lie. Obviously, that is not the impression we wish to give. --CTSWyneken 02:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

A matter of style

The antecedant of this relative clause should be "quotations" rather than "pamphlet" in order to produce good English style:

Four centuries later, the Nazis used quotations from this pamphlet, which was cited by the publisher of the Nazi newspaper Der Stürmer during the Nuremberg trials, [1] to justify the Final Solution.

It is not good style for a relative clause to refer to an object of a preposition. It could refer to either antecedant, though. Better would have been "which was mentioned ..." drboisclair 03:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

2004 ed. of On the Jews...

Dear Slim: This is the first I've seen of this edition. Do you have the publication details? It may well be a new translation that could be posted on the internet. While I do not like this work at all, it would be good to present the full record of Luther's career to add it. If all this works out, it would finally give us a non-infringing online text. --CTSWyneken 11:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

If you follow the link on the image page, you'll see it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I've sent for it interlibrary loan. The library record is of little help -- no indication as to the translator. --CTSWyneken 14:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Quote

Could you please find a more scholarly quote for the intro, than this: "Pastor Russell Briese commented at the Council of Christians and Jews at the Great Synagogue in Sydney: 'historians are at a loss to find a direct link between the anti-semitism of Luther's time and that of Hitler's campaign'."

It looks silly because clearly historians have found a link. We quote one in the intro saying there's a link! So it's bad writing, and a pastor isn't in a position to say what historians are at a loss to find. If what he says is correct (or is anything but a tiny-minority POV), there must be plenty of historians saying it, so could you find one please? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Slim:

Please do not characterize the work of others as silly. It does not help, since it is likely to raise hackles, as the below demonstrates.

Please take a look at Martin Luther and the Jews, the talk pages and the archives. This has all been discussed and cited in the past. It would save time if you would examine the evidence there. If you will not, I will have to repost it. In short, many historians have contested the link between Luther's words and the program of Hitler. If you wish to put Paul Johnson in the intro, then this view must be represented.

On the quotation, the pastor is, in fact, a historian. It is an adress given by invitation of an organization that includes Rabbis and Pastors. It is on the subject of Luther's role in antisemitism. It was printed in a journal. It is only one of the conclusions he makes, but it is the clearest counterpoint to Johnson's quote. He is as close an expert on this topic as Johnson is. Therefore, if the one quote stays, so must the other. --CTSWyneken 13:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Take some Thorazine, okay? There's nothing like horse tranquilizer to calm down people who get excited over nothing. A little history discussion should be exactly that - a history discussion, not a rant and forum for pugilism.

The Campaign to Overvilify Luther

I am appalled that there is an administrator, who has taken it upon him/herself to engage in this vilification of Martin Luther. It adds to the negative public image that Wikipedia has over the internet. This is biased propaganda that pushes a anti-Lutheran POV. I am appalled that this is the activity of an administrator. How despicable. This is as great an outrage to me as a Lutheran Christian as posting such inflammatory material would be to a Jewish person. How hypocritical. drboisclair 12:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Rather than simply being outraged, could you reply to my post above, please? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You have said that these pages were not ours. Well, they are not yours either to do with what you like. You do things unilaterally and push your POV with the inflammatory material you have added. You have reverted my edit that balances the matter. Now this article is POV. A Lutheran pastor is already as much of a scholar as a Jewish rabbi. He has had to graduate from college and grad school. So, the quotation is in order. May I suggest that you read the stuff that you have posted on your user page at the bottom, Ma'am. drboisclair 12:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you please tone down the rhetoric? The more you post in that tone, the less effective it becomes. I wouldn't quote a rabbi either if he was commenting on historians. It looks incredibly silly to say "historians are at a loss to find a link" and then in the very next sentence to quote a historian saying there's a link. It makes us look silly and the pastor look silly, particular as it's in the intro and therefore very noticeable. Either leave the intro as it is, or find a historian or some other scholar who comments. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Why not quote a rabbi, a rabbi is a scholar. I wonder whether you have a bias against clergypersons. Do you know the education required of Jewish or mainline Christian clergypersons? This article now is inflammatory and unbecoming Wikipedia. drboisclair 12:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Quit the rhetoric, please, or I will stop responding to you. Yes, I do know what education that entails. I am saying it would be preferable to use a scholarly quote. Rabbis and clergymen can be scholars too; I'm not ruling them out. I'm saying that an unknown pastor speaking at a meeting isn't a good source, especially not when the next sentence directly contradicts him. As for the intro, it is relevant to this book without question. It is your very strong POV on this matter that is telling you otherwise. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Your behavior here bespeaks your strong POV on the matter. You are not impartial. I don't care if you ever respond to me. I am surprised that a Cambridge University grad would carry on as you do. drboisclair 12:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Civility, please, both of you! David, there is no need to go at Slim, no matter how strongly you feel about the issue. Slim, would you please stop belittling other users and their additions? Also, do not assume Bliese is unknown, simply because he is not known to you. Also, if you do not like your additions removed or edited without discussion, then show the same respect to others, please.

--CTSWyneken 13:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's the pair of you who need to calm down. Every page I've seen you on ends up full of hysterical instructions and accusations. I've found one publication by Briese from 12 years ago: Foundations of a Lutheran Theology of Evangelism (Regensburger Studien zur Theologie); that indicates that he is not a well-known scholar. If the position that "historians are at a loss as to find a link" is a majority or significant-minority position, you should be able to find someone else who maintains this. If it is a tiny-minority position, we don't include it. So can you please refer me to other scholars who have said this, or anything like it? Also, please bear my point in mind that we will make Briese look foolish by including this quote, then having a historian directly contradict him. It seems unfair to do that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I see you've re-added it, CTSW, as you always do with drboisclair and Stan. You make both the article and Briese look absurd. We say the Nazis quoted it in their newspaper, we say it was cited at Nuremberg, we quote a historian saying it was the first step on the road to the Holocaust — and then we quote a Lutheran pastor saying historians are at a loss as to find a link! This is a classic case of a strong POV getting in the way of good writing and common sense. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Please stop with the characterizations and personal attacks.

I suggest that, if you do not like the Bliese quote, we remove the Johnson one as well. --CTSWyneken 13:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

If you don't mind making Bliese look foolish, it's not for me to protect him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Adding the material is the only way, or one of the only ways to make this article NPOV. CTSWyneken, I commend you for your ability to deal with this matter impartially. I resent the accusations laid against you. drboisclair 13:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I am raising the red flag

This article is non NPOV, so I have raised the red flag on it, and I think justly so. drboisclair 12:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The material put into the introduction is irrelevant to the work in question

As a Luther scholar I object to the quotations in the opening paragraph. They are irrelevant to the document in question. They characterize it, they present the reaction to the document in the 20th Century, but they do not define or describe it in its milieu. The changes impose upon it the misuse of it by the Nazis to the point that it calls Martin Luther a Nazi. I feel that I am at a loss to revert as that will be used against me. I am offended at this biased travesty and anti-Lutheran propaganda. drboisclair 12:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I've stumbled upon this and am confused. Maybe a comment by a complete outsider will be helpful. Maybe not. This page is about a work of Martin Luther's, right? It is not about the modern Lutheran religion, which I would assume has evolved in the past 500 or so years since the book was written. If the nazis seized upon this work and used it for their ends, as the cite from Johnson says they did and the other cite says no evidence can be found to say that they did or they didn't, it is relevant to the historical importance and impact of the work in question. To describe the connection as scholars have seen it does not say anything about the modern lutheran religion is not anti-Lutheran propaganda.

elizmr 18:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

If you'd like a little more information on this, see Martin Luther and the Jews. In short, scholarship is divided on the significance of this work. All agree that it is a vile book that should never have been written. beyond that, opinions diverge. Some historians, mostly those with expertise in anti-semitism, see a direct connection between this book and the Holocaust. Others believe the book to have been of little or no influence at all and that the Nazis used it to their own ends -- as they did other figures seen as heroes of the German Nation. Unfortunately, Luther's work made what all consider an all too good a tool in the hands of the Nazis. --CTSWyneken 18:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Bainton and Rappaport

What do Bainton and Rappaport say exactly to support this sentence: "The treatise is regarded by scholars of anti-Semitism as anti-Semitic, but by many scholars of Luther as anti-Judaic rather than anti-Semitic." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyone that reads the quotations would see that they as scholars and historians dispute the attribution of antisemitism to Luther. Removing these quotations would make this article biased. drboisclair 13:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

My question was: what do they actually say to support, in R's case: "The treatise is regarded by scholars of anti-Semitism as anti-Semitic" (as opposed to historians in general); and in Bainton's case: "many scholars of Luther [regard it] as anti-Judaic rather than anti-Semitic". Does Bainton actually say that "many" scholars of Luther so regard it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be changed to simply "scholars of Luther". drboisclair 13:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

See actual quotations at Martin Luther and the Jews. --CTSWyneken 14:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I can see a quote from Bainton, but it doesn't say anything about "many scholars of Luther" regard it as anti-Judaic rather than anti-Semitic. Could you supply a cite for that, please, or remove it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. See below for a start. --CTSWyneken 19:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

No, could you supply an actual citation for "many Lutheran scholars" i.e. produce a scholar who agrees with your edit. See WP:V. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, this is not my edit. It is accurate, however. Read these quotes. They actually do agree with the contention that Luther was anti-Judaic and not anti-semitic. These demonstrate the contention that mentioned. More are coming. --CTSWyneken 20:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't understood. If the text says "many Lutheran scholars believe X," and that text is challenged (as I am doing now), you must supply a source that actually says "many Lutheran scholars believe X" (or very close to that), or else the edit is unsourced and may be removed. There's no point in posting 20 scholars saying it, because who's to say that's "many"? There could be another 500 saying the opposite. Therefore, you must find a scholarly, or otherwise reliable, source who says exactly what the edit says. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

What about an exact quote to the effect: "The treatise is regarded by scholars of anti-Semitism as anti-Semitic"? If we do not have that in so many words by some authoritative source, then that sentence should be eliminated.Drboisclair 21:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The entire sentence is silly, unsourced, and false, because it's not only "scholars of anti-Semitism" (whatever that means) who say he's anti-Semitic. See the end of this page for my suggestion about avoiding weasel words, as the policies say we should. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I will challenge, then, the contention "scholars of anti-Semitism as anti-Semitic." Who's to say the whole field supports it? Produce your citations, I'll produce mine. I'm going home now. --CTSWyneken 21:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Scholar's Characterizations of Luther

Richard Marius. Martin Luther: The Christian Between God and Death Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999.

"Luther never organized any campaign against the Jews, and, as Heiko Oberman has said, despite the ferocity of his tirades against them he never truly renounced the notion of coexistence between Jews and Christians. But the fact that Luther's hostility to Jews was not the same as modern anti-Semitism does not excuse it. It was as bad as Luther could make it, and was bad enough to leave a legacy that had hateful consequences for centuries." (Marius, 380)

Gordon Rupp Martin Luther: Hitler's Cause -- or Cure? London: Lutterworth Press, 1945

"But, as the reader will remember, the fighting of a civil war does not equal beheading of Anabaptists, nor does that equal the exile of Jews, which Luther demanded. Where is the evidence that Luther demanded a pogrom or wholesale executions?" (Rupp, 76)

"Luther was not recommending personal violence." (Rupp, 78-79).

"It all falls very far short of the Nazi anti-semitism with its doctrine of Race, with its mass extermination." (Rupp, 79)

These are the quickest. Over the next week, I will look up others. --CTSWyneken 19:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Robert Michael

Why have you deleted who Robert Michael is? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is the citation from one of the university's websites. Robert Michael. "Luther, Luther Scholars, and the Jews," Encounter (Fall 1985), pp. 339-56. Why did you change it, and why did you delete who he was? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I have the essay in hand and the words in the quotation are nowhere to be found in it. When the user who first posted it was pressed for the reason for the difference, we were given a link to the database. The text is verbatim of the abstract. Therefore, these are not the words of Dr. Michael. To call them such is not accurate, saying that in the kindest way.

As far as who he is, given the awkward way we need to word this to be accurate, the wiki link takes care of it. If you can find a short way of saying all this, I have no objection to you adding a few words to ID him, like: "Historian of Antisemitism..." As it was, the phrase was overbalanced. --CTSWyneken 20:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

No, the phrase was not overbalanced. It was his title and it served to explain why we were quoting him. You will have to stop this POV pushing or you will end up before the arbcom, and they could stop you from editing these articles completely. When you're here, your loyalty has to be to Wikipedia, not Martin Luther. There is a considerable body of knowledge that describes his anti-Semitism, the Nazis' use of his material, and the ideological link via German Lutherans. That needs to be added to the article, with proper sources, properly described. Your editing here and at other articles is disruptive and inappropriate. You label me as having a strong POV because I oppose you. But I have no POV at all about Martin Luther. I couldn't care less about him. I do have a POV about Wikipedia's policies, which you are showing contempt for. I also have a POV when it comes to bad writing, and your edits to the page often result in that, because your main concern is to dilute criticism, not to write a good article. I'm sorry to write to you this way, but you have gone too far, and I am requesting that you stop. You are free — indeed, welcome — to bring forward by the ton any material from pro-Luther scholars that you want, but please do not delete material that is already in the article or that others may add. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

That is not true. You do have a strong POV about Martin Luther. That is why you are stronghandedly in here unilaterally changing things and threatening people. If you couldn't care less about him, why are you editing these articles? You are also leveling unfair charges here. Why don't you bring in another impartial administrator to arbitrate? User:Drboisclair 20:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

When I tell you I couldn't care less about Luther, please show me the courtesy of not contradicting me, and don't presume to have privileged access to my thoughts. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Actions speak louder than words and thoughts. However, you seem to have privileged access to other people's thoughts. You are treating this editor in a grossly unfair way. Drbois 20:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

To set the record straight here: CTSWyneken has always been loyal to Wikipedia, even if it has not been to Slim Virgin's Wikipedia. I think your above post is rude and unfair. Drbois 20:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't need privileged access to know that you and CTSWyneken are Lutherans, given that you've admitted it, given how strongly and obviously you push that POV, and given that your edits are concentrated around these and related articles. Don't try to start one of your infinite posting loops, please; CTSWyneken has made only 840 edits to the encyclopedia, but 2,015 to article and user talk pages, and that's a ratio you shouldn't be encouraging him to make any worse. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, we are making progress here! Be glad that there is balance here: the article is becoming more and more NPOV! Assuming that you have interest in a certain religion--I'm not saying which one it is--you would be interested in editing information on it that would be fair. That is all that is going on here. We need to cool down and work together. Drboisclair 20:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I therefore suggest again that you and CTSW leave other people's edits alone, and build the article up from the other POV, using Lutheran scholars, writing the material up carefully, sticking closely to what the sources say, giving citations for all or most edits. No weasel phrases like "most scholars think this," or "some historians think that." And in particular, don't delete or change references or the descriptions of the sources. That is very bad form. Build, don't destroy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The trouble has been a lack of trust on my part. I have learned to respect the edits of persons like Humus and SIRubenstein and Jayjg. I liked you when we had that first run in about Luther's advocating killing Jews in that one particular quotation. Having worked with the above mentioned persons, I thought that we hammered out all these things on the Martin Luther page. This article was and is still a work in progress. My request of you is that you would be more impartial. Probably the sentence should read: "The treatise is regarded by scholars of anti-Semitism as anti-Semitic, but by Luther scholars as anti-Judaic rather than anti-Semitic." That takes out the "many" here, but could we get that sentence from some scholar in so many words? Drboisclair 21:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

What are "scholars of anti-Semitism"? It's a weasel phrase. Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Drboisclair, could I ask two things of you if we're to continue: (1) please don't make me post everything three or four times; this is the third time at least that I've explained the problem with that sentence; and (2) please read our editing policies very carefully: WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I will gladly comply with both these requests, thank you for your efforts. Perhaps things will turn out better for all concerned. Drboisclair 21:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.

As for Professor Michael, I'm going to contact him to check that he's being quoted correctly. In the meantime, we should not weasel word who appears to have said it. Also, this article is using a horrible footnote system. Does anyone mind if I change it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, since CTSWyneken, Drboisclair, StanZegel have admitted to a priori censorship (that is, deleting properly sourced contributions to this article even after they admit they have not read the sources), I decided to limit my citations only to sources that other non-biased Wikipedians, such as yourself, could readily confirm online. That's why I utilized the Sassoon online database to summarize Michael’s arguments, since any attempt that I made to provide my own were summarily reverted by CTS, etal. Now that CTS has a copy of the artcle, perhaps he will be kind enough to answer the seven (7)questions.Doright 07:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Slim, I put this here to avoid putting it on your talk page, but will you vote on the cat in Talk:Martin Luther. I think that this will settle everything in everyone's mind. Drboisclair 00:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I have not liked the footnote system, is there anything better? I think that a direct contact with Dr. Michael would be helpful. As you know, CTS, was in contact with him 13 years ago, when he made that study. If one can get the information from the man himself, go for it. Drboisclair 00:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you thinking of the <ref title=""></ref> system? If so, and you haven't already gone to it, go for it. I like it better, too. --CTSWyneken 03:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

On the Michael article, I'd be happy to help you get a copy of the article itself, if you'd like. We can work through email. Barring that, it should be easily available via interlibrary loan. If you call Dr. Michael, ask him if he would rather this article or another be used to quote his views. It would serve us best to have a copy which can be verified. --CTSWyneken 03:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

We don't desperately need a copy because we have the full citation. We just need him to confirm that those are his words. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

But I beg to differ. Verifiability is the issue. You are not ready to take on good faith that I have checked this out, which is your right. So,why should I believe that you have contacted Michael? (which I'm inclined to do; this is a rhetorical question) The solution, really, is to find a quote in Dr. Michael's extensive work that makes the point you wish to make. Most of it is easily gotten to via libraries. You can examine it, I can examine it and we could ask someone we both trust to examine it. (Humus Sapiens, SLRubenstein or JayG come to mind) --CTSWyneken 11:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

CTSW, please stop changing this. You're making the page look silly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a matter of principle. Should I ask for a review of the issue by a third party? It is academic integrity that is at stake. --CTSWyneken 11:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Slim: by changing this entry back, you have just falsified a reference. You are aware of this, so it is unethical behavior. If you do not, perhaps we should have Cecropia look at it. I will wait for you to do the right thing, or for others to do it. It is simply unacceptable. --CTSWyneken 12:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't start with your accusations again. We have a quote and we have a full citation. You are the one telling us (a) that it is contained only in the abstract and (b) that the author did not write the abstract. We have no other source for this than you, and you haven't told us how you know. Therefore, I have e-mailed the author. If he doesn't respond within a few days, I'll e-mail the publisher. But in the meantime, we can't remove a properly referenced quote based on your claim to know that the author did not write those words. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, never once have I removed the quote. Nor would I demand that this be done. I ask that it be properly attributed.

Second, you have another source: the essay itself. It is availble via interlibrary loan. I have offered to help you get a copy, which I offer again. If you do not care do to this, I will help someone else we can both agree upon to do this. It is not an obscure journal, as these things go. In fact, it is on the shelves of my library.

Third, again, I have repeadly said that I have the essay in hand. When this first came up, I mentioned that I had gone to the shelves in the library where I work and taken it off the shelves. Please go back to the description of the incident in the talk pages to see this.

Fifth, if you are not willing to give me the decency of assuming good faith, why should we trust that you have emailed Dr. Michael? I do and I would expect an adminstrator would return that favor.

Sixth, You have a citation to a database. There is enough information for you to do exactly as I have. Go and look at the database record. You will see that it is an abstract of the article. Examine the quote we have. It is exactly the words of the abstract. When you characterize these as the words of Dr. Michael, you are attributing to him the words of another.

This is a matter of serious concern for an librarian and the scholarly community. If I know of a breach of the canons of academic research and can do something about it, I will. The choice before you is to do the right thing. Fix the attribution. If you will not, or another will not, we have two choices. I will do it again, or we can invite Cecropia, a disinterested party to review the case. The choice is yours. No more from me on this today. --CTSWyneken 12:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I have asked this two or three times, but you won't answer. Why do you believe the author did not write the abstract? It's a moot point now, of course, given that the editor you recently welcomed has vandalized the page. Nice company you keep, CTS. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would stop attacking people. Now, as far as abstracts go, very few abstracts are written by the authors of the abstracted pieces. This is especially true of articles. That, and since none of the words of the abstract are in the article itself. --CTSWyneken 13:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Your remark is incorrect "SlimVirgin" -- I placed all material removed from this page on the "Martin Luther and the Jews" page, which *you* just chose to remove, ironically. Further, I provided a link to that page which more than adequately covers this material. It is obvious to me that there is agenda-driven axe-grinding going on here more than any objective concern or interest in the issues. The page "Martin Luther and the Jews" is an excellent resource for a well-rounded and balance discussion of Luther's views on the Jews, including his noxious writing, "On the Jews and their Lies." Accusing me of "vandalism" is silly. User_talk:ptmccain(talk)

Lutherans who defend, censor, or try to tone down Luther's views

Questions for CTSWyneken. Again I'm asking you about Michael's arguments, NOT THE SPECIFIC WORDS he uses to convey his ideas.Doright 05:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Question (1) Do you deny that Michael argues that Luther scholars who defend Luther’s views on the Jews ignore the murderous implications of his antisemitism? Doright 05:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Question (2) Do you deny that Michael argues that Luther scholars who try to tone down Luther’s views on the Jews ignore the murderous implications of his antisemitism? Doright 05:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Question (3) Do you deny that Michael argues that Luther scholars who censor Luther’s views on the Jews ignore the murderous implications of his antisemitism? Doright 05:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Question (4) Do you deny that Michael argues that Luther mythologized the Jews as completely evil?Doright 05:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Question (5) Do you deny that Michael argues that Luther’s view was that Jews should not be treated as humans?Doright 05:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Question (6) Do you deny that Michael argues that Luther’s view was that Jews should be removed from Germany?Doright 05:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Question (7) Do you deny that Michael argues that Luther’s view was that Jews could be saved if they converted to Christianity but that their demonic hostility to Christian society makes this inconceivable?Doright 05:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

For those who see this, you should know that I ignore the contributions of user Doright, unless others interact with him. He has, in the past, engaged in constant personal attacks and has shown no sign of changing that behavior. This is the only way I know of to keep from going down the road towards filing an RfC, which I'm not inclined to do, since he occaisonly makes good contributions. He shows no interest in properly documenting his quotations, which has occupied too many of my hours and too much of our time to verify and correct. In fact, we are still doing this. This is the last I will say on this matter. --CTSWyneken 11:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You vandalized this article by almost blanking it, and then slapped it into another article without rewriting or checking for repetition. You also violated 3RR, so you might want to take the opportunity to revert yourself while you still can. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Slim, this is a new user. Perhaps he is unware of the way things work around here. Why not explain, rather than threaten. --CTSWyneken 13:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for the sentence in question

How is this for the opening sentence here: "There is disagreement among scholars whether the treatise is anti-Semitic[9] or anti-Judaic.[10]" or should it be: "There is disagreement among scholars as to whether the treatise is anti-Semitic or anti-Judaic."

Two initial suggestions.Drboisclair 21:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This would be fine by me. --CTSWyneken 03:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Notes

I've converted to the ref footnote system. I haven't checked that everything is 100 per cent and I have to stop editing soon, but I'll do more tomorrow. So if you find anything weird looking, don't panic. Some of the citations did seem a little repetitive, but that may be because I didn't add them to the right place. However, once it's fixed up, they should be easier to use. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Slim. Having done this work on other pages, I know what a pain it is. When you're done, I'll give it a look for citation form. --CTSWyneken 11:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course, once I'd finished, I discovered there's a tool that does it automatically: User:Cyde/Ref converter. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Halsall material redundant in two sections: should only be in one, preferably the later section

The Halsall material that is in "The wider context" section and the "Contemporary debate" section is redundant. The material in the former section should be integrated into the contemporary debate. Drboisclair 01:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Scholars of Anti-Semitism

Dear Slim:

I have no problem with you finding another way to say this. I do have a problem with you portraying Luther scholars as if they were not historians. They are. This language comes from a careful negotiation on the Martin Luther and Martin Luther and the Jews pages. It recognizes both scholarly viewpoints.

I can support only text that gives voice to both sides of this debate, without tipping it one way or the other. Alternatively, you could delete the paragraph entirely. --CTSWyneken 11:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't really understand what a "Scholar of anti-semitism" is, I have never heard of this type of study before and am not sure there are scholars that focus primarily on anti-semitism.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | TINC|Talk 11:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It's original research because it's a made-up term. CTSW, can you produce one non-Lutheran scholar who argues that the treatise is not anti-Semitic? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I will take a look, since it has been quite awhile. The point is irrelevant, though. Luther scholars are scholars as credentialed as any of the ones who write on this subject. So we need language that reflects some scholars see him and/or his remarks as antisemitic, others find that language misleading, because it implies a racism not a part of Luther's religiously based hatred.

Having said this, let me repeat that the result is little different, to be expelled from the nation because of your race has the same effect as being expelled because of your religion. It is, however, a scholarly view and needs to be treated as such here. --CTSWyneken 11:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The point is that you're trying to pretend there's some kind of even split. Most ordinary historians with no obvious religious affiliations or motives, regard Luther as an anti-Semite, whereas the ones who don't are not only in a tiny minority, but are themselves Lutherans, to the best of my knowledge. I stand to be corrected, of course, but we need names of non-Lutheran historians who argue the same. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not the point at all. The point is that the Luther scholars are historians. So, it is a POV to say, historians... Luther scholars. As to whether most or all historians disagree with them, do you have a citation to a head count? Or even a scholar who says this? What's good for this gander is good for the goose. --CTSWyneken 13:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

What is Anti-Judaism anyways? It kinda seems like it would have the same meaning of anti-semitism by definition but used to distance itself from some of the negative connotations (a euphemism). Maybe we could include a brief description of what the Lutheran scholars mean by it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | TINC|Talk 11:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

There certainly is room to do it here, although we do have an article, Martin Luther and the Jews, where it is fleshed out more. Basically, these scholars maintain that Luther's hatred was of Judaism and those who practised it and Jews as a racial group. They point to the fact that Luther personally aided a convert from Judaism, employing him, taking in his children in a time of financial stress, etc. Again, the point is not that this makes Luther's remarks acceptable in any way. They are just interested in understanding the man. --CTSWyneken 11:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, there is no clear definition that says anti-semitism is only hatred of Jews as an ethnic group, and not hatred of Jews as a religion. They are different yes, but I have not heard that it doesn't qualify as Anti-S when the dislike is only directed towards practicing jews.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk-TINC 12:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The point is not whether we think there's a distinction or not. Some scholars think there is one. The NPOV rules of wikipedia mean that we have to be sensitive to that. --CTSWyneken 12:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't neccasarily advocating not mentioning it, I just wanted to mention what they thought it was.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk-TINC 12:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Understood. By the way, welcome! It's good to have a new voice here. --CTSWyneken 12:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk-TINC 12:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what "scholars of anti-Semitism" is either. As far as I know, they're simply historians. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jay: I have no objection to changing the wording here, providing we represent the Luther scholars accurately and as historians as well. As you may recall, all of this was comprimise language.

By the way: Welcome back! I recall that you suggested we model this article after articles on other infamous works. How is it stacking up, in your opinion? Where would you like to go with it? --CTSWyneken 19:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Inventory of Scholars on Antisemitism vs. Anti-Judaism

This will take some time, but I'll put here what I find. Please feel free to add to it. If we decide to add any to the article, I'll provide full citations. --CTSWyneken 13:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Deja vu: see Talk:Martin Luther/archive1, Talk:Martin Luther/archive2, Talk:Martin Luther and the Jews/Archive 2 and probably there is more. I think that first we should agree on definitions and the rules, otherwise we'll get data scattering (again) instead of data gathering. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Please add to the list:

1. Antisemitism does not necessarily need to include racial or ethnic component.
2. Antisemitism does not necessarily need to be "modern" (whatever it means).
3. Responding to alleged "tractate of Jewish origin" with violent calls against entire Jewish communities is antisemitism.
4. One's involvement in other matters (such as fighting Catholicism) is irrelevant. Hostility to Jews is antisemitism.
5. One's "good" intentions are irrelevant. Attempts to convert Jews (IOW, make them disappear) is antisemitism.

Luther Scholars

Anglicans

Antisemitic Gordon Rupp Martin Luther: Hitler's Cause or Cure 81.--CTSWyneken 13:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Baptists

Not the same as modern anti-Semitism Richard Marius Martin Luther: The Christian Between God and Death. 380. "But the fact that Luther's Hostility to Jews was not the same as modern anti-Semitism does not excuse it." --CTSWyneken 13:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't say it's not anti-Semitism. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not at this point analyzing, just reporting. Please note that he does say it's not modern antisemitism. By the way, do you have any scholars you wish to report on? We're data gathering here. --CTSWyneken 19:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you quote what he actually says with a citation (book and page number)? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

it is above. The 380 is the page number and the words are in quotations. --CTSWyneken 19:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Quakers

Roland Bainton Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther 299. "His position was entirely religious and in no respect racial." [The contention that Luther's views were religious as opposed to racial is the contention that they were anti-Judaic rather than anti-Semitic] Drboisclair 14:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

As above, doesn't state it's not anti-Semitism. There are some who distinguish between "religious" and "racial" anti-Semitism, while still classifying both as anti-Semitism. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we should data gather at this point and analyze later. Do you have some scholars to add? I'd like to get these summaries done for a number of scholars so that we can get a good overview of the landscape. --CTSWyneken 19:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You're the one who wants to make the distinction, so you're the one who has to produce the sources who make it, and specifically you need to produce sources who use those expressions: anti-Semitic versus anti-Judaic, because it seems to me that the distinction, assuming it exists, is between racial anti-Semitism and religious anti-Semitism. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

As you have said before, Slim, no one owns this article. There is no one-way burden of proof here. So, then, please work with us. Or produce a quotation that says exactly that historians call Luther antisemitic. That is your standard, after all. --CTSWyneken 19:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You're the one introducing a distinction that at least some editors on this page have not encountered before. Therefore, please produce a source for that distinction in relation to Luther. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Please live up to your own rules, or admit they are overly strict. Where does someone, anyone, say: historians believe Luther is antisemitic? That is your standard above. So abide by it. --CTSWyneken 20:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The introduction to this article cites an historian calling the pamphlet the first work of modern anti-Semitism. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, using your rule, it's not the same thing. He doesn't say historians call Luther anti-semitic. He says it is the first work of modern antisemitism. I think the rule is over rigid, but if you are going to insist on it, you need to do better. --CTSWyneken 20:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

What rule are you talking about now? You're not doing yourself any favors with this attitude, you know. No matter how much you've managed to fool yourself, or others have managed to fool you, that this kind of obstructionism works on Wikipedia, it actually doesn't, and you won't find any serious editor supporting you over the long term, because they'll eventually get embarrassed by you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:On the Jews and Their Lies (Martin Luther)#Bainton and Rappaport, beginning with your third comment. Also, please stop attacking me. The point here is that you want to disparage the position of legitimate scholars by calling your view the one historians make, but Lutherans think otherwise. To do this, you changed the text of others without discussing it first, something you complained about others doing. You asked for citations, I began to do so, something which does take time, and you immediately attack them and minimize them. Why not just help us collect citations and we can then craft text that all the editors can live with? --CTSWyneken 21:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:V, "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." So, the burden of proof lies with you, CTSWyneken, as SlimVirgin has correctly pointed out above. Pecher ^Talk 21:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Which is exactly what I've done. Please review this talk page and the archives. I've been doing this for months. --CTSWyneken 01:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I want to stop you from saying that only "scholars of anti-Semitism," whatever that means, say Luther was anti-Semitic, particularly when the intro of the very same article contains a quote to the contrary. I would like you to stop making up phrases and words, stop deleting quotes, stop deleting citations, stop arguing each and every single tiny point, stop being obstructive, stop supporting people who vandalize the page just because they share your POV, and stop acting as though Wikipedia is your soapbox. No advocacy of any kind is allowed on Wikipedia. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, how many times have I said this is not my phrase. You can change it if you wish. Second, as you well know, it is not up to you or I to say anything in this article. It is what the scholars say.

Second, I have not suggested even once to delete any of the quotes on this page. I have corrected citations and copyedited like every other wikipedian. Nothing more, nothing less.

Third, you are pushing your POV. You've constantly attacked me and I do not appreciate it.

Fourth, you have not replied to my request to correct the page number in the Marius quote. I looked it up. It is wrong.

Fifth, the quotation for the abstract is in error. It amounts to academic fraud. I cannot let that stand. If you wish to quote an abstract, fine. Call it that. I have offered to help you acquire the original essay, but you do not wish to look at it.

In spite of all this, we can work together, if you are willing to be reasonable. So, as you should, give me a benefit of a doubt. Why not help assemble quotes and stop challenging every quotation you do not like. --CTSWyneken 01:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Lutherans

Uwe Siemon-Netto, "Luther and the Jews." Lutheran Witness 123 (2004) no. 4:19. "So he was an anti-Semite after all, wasn’t he? He was not. Anti-Semites are racists, and racists appeared on the scene much later in history—after the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. Luther did not think of Jews in ethnic terms; his bias was religious. Just before his death he admonished the princes to treat converts from Judaism as brethren."

Unclear sentence

Does anyone know what this means? "In this treatise Luther uncritically reproduces material that had been previously written by Nicholas of Lyra (Pulcherrimae quaestiones Iudaicam perfidam in catholicam fide improbantes), Paul of Burgos (Scrutinium Scripturarum), and Anthony Margaritha (Der gantz Jüdisch glaub) against the Jews. (Pelikan, Jaroslav & Lehmann, Helmut (eds). Luther's Works. Vol. 47: "The Christian in Society" IV, Sherman, Franklin (ed) (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), 121-306, especially, 130-31, 137-38.) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see this days ago when it was removed, so as the author of this sentence I would like to explain what it means: according to the introduction of the English translation of On the Jews in Luther's Works Luther used the anti-semitic/anti-judaic material in these sources. Studying On the Jews shows that he did so "uncritically", which means indiscriminately. He simply reproduced material that was in them, accepting them as true, without examining their truthfulness. Anthony Margaritha was a former Jewish man, who converted to Christianity, who wrote anti-semitic pamphlets in the 16th Century that were even more extreme than Luther's. Drboisclair 15:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

New Marius Quote

The page number for the new Marius quote is in error. Does anyone know what page it's on. --CTSWyneken 20:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing this. --CTSWyneken 14:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Affairs

Does anyone know where I can find this periodical? I'm hoping to verify the citation from Rappaport. --CTSWyneken 21:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Query

I'm moving sections around trying to introduce some narrative flow. I can't understand what this paragraph is supposed to mean, or what the implications are meant to be: "During the twenty-five years following Luther's death, Luther's polemics had very little effect on the treatment of Jews. ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  In the 1570s, however, Pastor Georg Nigrinus published a book, Enemy Jew and a republication of the work by Nicolas Selnecker, one of the authors of the Formula of Concord. Neither appear to have influenced either princes or the general population. (Johannes Wallmann, "The Reception of Luther's Writings on the Jews from the Reformation to the End of the 19th Century." Lutheran Quarterly ns 1(1987)No. 1:72-78.)

People ignored Luther's On the Jews... and other venomous writings. Two pastors resuttected it in the 1570s. They had little effect on the population in general. By the way, this is a direct quote from a scholar. The citation at the end of the paragraph is for the whole paragraph. --CTSWyneken 01:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not in quotation marks. The paragraph just sat there, not leading from or to anything. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I have only begun to add quotations from this essay. All the other changes and challenges have taken my time up. Let's put the quotations in, then. If you want to know where its going, it documents that Luther's On the Jews was, with the exception of a few writers, ignored from the early 17th Century until the eve of the 20th. --CTSWyneken 01:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

But it doesn't say that. As I said, it just sat there going nowhere. Regardless of POV, the writing on this page was very poor, and the above was an example of it. Quote after quote stuck in with no regard for narrative flow, or even whether the thing actually said what it was being used to say. The least we can do, while we disagree over POV, is to get the writing straightened out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This is true, but I contend this is due to the strife. If you are content to let the other points of view stand for the time being, allow references to be corrected without objecting, or, at least allow me to help you acquire essays you do not have so that you can verify them, we will have the opportunity to attend to the thimg. Will the proposal below work for you?--CTSWyneken 12:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Edited for flow

I've tried to edit the page for flow because it was just a series of disjointed quotes. It's still far from perfect — too much quoting, not enough summarizing or story-telling — but it's better than it was. I've also moved the long excerpts to another page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone wonders, I had to make lots of little edits in case someone was reverting from underneath me, and also because there was a formatting problem at one point, where one of the blockquotes was causing all the paragraphs to run together, but it took some fiddling before I found it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You've done good work here, although we really should put something in about how the work was received and viewed between the time Luther died and the Nazis resurrected it. That is the topic of the Wallmann essay, whose quotes you removed. I'll try summarizing language to get this information back into the article. --CTSWyneken 14:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Russell Briese

"Lutheran pastor Russell Briese has said that "historians are at a loss to find a direct link between the anti-semitism of Luther's time and that of Hitler's campaign.""

Could someone explain what Briese's expertise is in this area? Is he a known scholar of Luther? We have him credited as a Lutheran pastor. I'd suggest this would not be sufficient to consider him informed. If he is an expert in the study of Luther's influence, or of Hitler, then fair enough, but please do give reason for including his views. I have removed them in the meanwhile. Grace Note 01:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Would you please restore this balancing quote? Briese is a historian who delivered this address before a meeting of the Rabbis and Pastors of Austrailia at the Great Synagogue in Sydney. This essay is from a scholarly journal. Since this article is a constant source of controversy, I would appreciate it if you would discuss it and read the talk page before changing it. --CTSWyneken 01:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you please let us know what his credentials are? I do not believe it is a "balancing quote". It looks like a partisan defence of Luther. I daresay many Lutheran pastors could and would make it, given the opportunity, but they do not have the credentials for their defence to be taken seriously. Grace Note 01:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

And Lutheran Forum is not a "scholarly journal". It would be misleading to describe it so. It is a collection of writings by Lutherans aimed at other Lutherans, selected by a parish pastor. It is not peer reviewed. Grace Note 01:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The worst of it is we make the source look bad and ourselves look silly, because his quote about historians struggling to find a link is sandwiched between the publisher of a Nazi newspaper saying "there was a link," and a British historian saying "there was a link," and is followed by an article full of other historians saying "there was a link." If you want to find a balancing quote for the intro, there must be a better one than that around. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly right and largely why I suggested that his credentials be supplied. Because here is a guy who doesn't seem to be up on the scholarship, claiming that there is no link.Grace Note 01:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

There is much debate in the scholarly community about the connection between Luther, this work and Hitler. Briese makes this point the clearest of all. It is POV to delete this quotation. You are also wrong about Lutheran Forum. It is peer reviewed and cited in peer reviewed literature. If you'd like, I can demonstrate that. Given time, I can produce Bliese's credentials as well. Or replace it with a Rupp quote that makes the same point. I am away from my notes. That is why the Siemon-Netto quote, the best I had at hand went in. I would prefer to return to the quote from Bliese, or remove both this quote and the Johnson quote, whose own credentials should be checked, if you wish to go that route. --CTSWyneken 10:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Russell Briese Qualifications

Dr. Russell Briese holds a 1994 Doctoral degree in Theology from the University of Regensburg (Germany). He serves as a Lutheran pastor in Australia. --CTSWyneken 13:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

All this shows is that he is a certified clergyman. He could be an authority on matters of Lutheran theology (though I doubt it, as he is not terrbly notable), but he is no authority on Martin Luther and the Jews, as he is not an historian, let alone an historian competent in anti-Semitism and the ideological roots of Nazism. Pecher ^Talk 18:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Briese's Doctorate is from a respected German University. His dissertation and the book derived from it are in the history of Lutheran theology. This requires an intimate knowledge of the works of Luther in the original Latin and German. He has written for several publications on a wide variety of historical topics. He is at least as qualified as Paul Johnson, a Journalist, who writes on popular histories on a variety of topics. If we are going to quote one, we should quote the other. If we do not quote one, we should not quote the other. --CTSWyneken 19:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Lutheran Forum as Scholarly Journal

1. Indexed in the American Theological Library Association's Religion Index.
2. Included in scholar.google.com's index of scholarly essays online.
3. Indexed in OCLC Articles First.

Oberman/Halsall

I have restated the section about Luther's sympathising with Jews, so that the two views are parallel. One cannot give as a fact one writer's view and as an opinion another's.

"Heiko Oberman states that earlier in his career, Luther had appeared to sympathize with the Jews, especially regarding their treatment under the Papacy, declaring that "[t]he Jews are blood-relations of our Lord, the Jews belong more to Christ than we" in the hope of converting them to Christianity, although historian Paul Halsall has disagreed with that view, stating that "Luther's hatred of Jews ... was present very early on" and was "not some affectation of old age." "

Grace Note 01:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a nice rework of what is there. Others beside both these people make similar points. You may want to review the documentation at Martin Luther and the Jews, which documents the earlier Luther's positive comments about the Jews more thoroughly that this. I don't think we need to expand it much here, since we're not dealing with the topic in-depth here, but perhaps you might suggest some tweaking of language. --CTSWyneken 12:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

"Balancing" material

Please do not add material into sections of this (or any other) article simply to "balance" stuff that doesn't agree with your POV. The stuff added to the intro to replace the Briese stuff was not even about the treatise. While it might have a place in a more general article about Luther, it has little cause to be in this article and none at all to be in the introductory section. Grace Note 01:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not delete material without talking about it first. There is a reason why it was there. It is representative of a significant viewpoint in the literature on this subject. The balance I mentioned was keep the article in NPOV, even though it was not a direct fit. All this would be solved if you would restore Bliese's quote. --CTSWyneken 10:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is exactly a rule that states someone has to talk about an edit on the talk page before they make it. Of course idealy there should be some discussion on the matter, but if there had to be consensus on every issue then nothing would ever get done, it would be as slow as a Roman Tank.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Whose point of view was that quote representative of? And if it was so representative, why are you unable to find another one to replace it with? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, as slow as a Cathaginian Elephant, but that's another article! 8-) On most articles, just editing away works well. Here, the case is that an editor complained that material was added and then removed it, but had no problem removing detail in the first place. When editing on subjects that are high in emotion, this is likely to set off a vigorous debate, if not edit wars or near edit wars. On such subjects, it is almost always best to discuss an issue first, especially when removing a point of view entirely. --CTSWyneken 11:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Other editors are not obliged to receive your stamp of approval before editing; on the contrary the applicable WIkipedia policy is Be bold!. The best way to avoid edit wars is not to start them, so this point of yours is off the mark. Pecher ^Talk 11:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Nor am I required to have the stamp of approval of others. Edit wars are two way streets. In this case, the current debate was started by another user, who saw fit to remove the expression of the point of view she did not like. Other editors have engaged in the same. When edits were made without discussing first, I moved to discussing first. But she and others did not feel compelled to do the same. So I went back to boldness, only to be criticized for not discussing. Can you see the double-standard here?

What is ironic is that, on three pages related to Martin Luther, I have been able to work with several editors who certainly do not agree with me on many things. We all did some research, we all debated quite vigorously, we achieved an agreed upon text that was present on this and other pages. Now this text is being edited without regard to how difficult it was to achieve and some have assumed bad faith rather than good faith on my part.

I would prefer to work with, rather than at cross purposes, with all. But it seems to me that all people want to do eliminate any scholarship that tries to understand how such a vile document could come from the pen of Martin Luther.

I will keep working on this article, to keep working at it. I want neither a whitewash nor a promotion of this work to a status more infamous than Mein Kampf It should not be ignored, nor given more importance than its worth.

So, may I suggest that we look at ways to work together. What I would suggest is this: We gather the opinion of scholars on this work, here on the talk page. Then, after all have gathered what quotations they can find, we find a way to express it all here. Second, no editor removes any quotation from other editors while we do this. Any misgivings about text should be discussed here. We encourage all parties to check references and correct errors in them. Agreed? --CTSWyneken 12:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If you want to add a new section explaining the context of Luther's view, no one is stopping you from doing that. But you must stop trying to whitewash other sections. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Refs

I have a bit more tweaking of refs before they're 100 per cent. Will do more tomorrow. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That would be great! Thanks for that work. It is a bit of a drudge. I hope the new bot does this well and efficiently. --CTSWyneken 11:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Current State of the Article

Having looked at the page again, I see that many of my issues have been addressed. Thank you. I apologize for getting stuck on the talk page (the disadvantage of trying to squeeze wiki in between meetings). I jumped to the conclusion that, since it was not mentioned that such changes had been made, none had been made.

Having checked the credentials of Briese above, I'm going to put back his quotation. He holds a doctoral degree and thus qualifies as a scholar. Both he and Johnson have similar expertise on the topic at hand. --CTSWyneken 14:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It's nonsense that anyone with a doctorate counts as a scholar. What does he actually do now? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

He serves as a pastor. What of it? Someone who earns a Ph. D. is a scholar. Especially, when he continues to publish. He was good enough a scholar to be invited to speak at a conference of Christians and Jews at the Great Synagogue of Sydney. They thought him scholarly enough.

The same thing can be said of Johnson. He may not even have a Ph. D., much less in history. He is a journalist. Does that make a difference? Not really. He does good work.

So they have the same level of scholarship, when it comes to this subject. Both should be heard, but together. --CTSWyneken 20:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Fresh eyes report: I can't really see how Briese is in any way a quotable source, especially in comparison with Paul Johnson (I assume the article refers to Paul Johnson (journalist).) PhD's perhaps, in some sense of the word, qualifies one as a scholar; but it certainly isn't the case that having a PhD makes your comments automatically noteworthy in Wikipedia or anywhere else. I'm sure there are much better sources explaining why there is no connection between between Luther's Jew-hatred and the Jew-hatred that grew to the Holocaust in the land where Luther's influence is perhaps the strongest (though I will point out that the roots of Hitlerism were in Catholic Austria and Bavaria.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments, JP. But this man is a historian. That is where his doctorate lies. Paul Johnson is a journalist, who writes fine popular histories. Johnson's strength is he does a lot of research. This does not make him an expert on Martin Luther, however. I believe both these should be heard. --CTSWyneken 20:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Pretend I'm a complete idiot, please, and point me to the description describing his "lots of research". It should be easy to find a better source. The sentence in contention says that "historians are at a loss to find a direct link between the anti-semitism of Luther's time and that of Hitler's campaign." But it doesn't take an historian to just look at Julius Streicher quoting this book in defense of his own part in the Holocaust." I'm not sure why you're referring to Johnson as a journalist-but-not-an-historian, other than to try to bolster your point; he's generally considered an historian (a Google search for "historian Paul Johnson" yields over 60,000 hits, and "paul johnson historian" yields around another 50,000; "loony Paul Johnson" gives another 20,000, for what it's worth) and writing dozens of history books does make one, to some degree, a historian -- I've tried to avoid a similar conversation over at David Irving, who lacks an academic credential; my conclusion there was that Irving was an historian -- a bad one. One has to assume a lot more facts not in evidence (that I've seen, anyway, since you invited me over here to take a look) to give any weight to Briese's quotability. Me, I think neither quote belongs in the intro; ending the intro with the reference to the Final Solution makes the point quite strongly enough. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

My objection isn't so much on Briese's scholarship or lack thereof; it's that including the quote there is bad writing, because of course historians have found a link, and we point the links out, so that quote sticks out like a sore thumb, coming from nowhere and going nowhere = bad writing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Michael article

CTSW, I have a question. If you have a copy of the Robert Michael article, and if the words we used as a quote were from the abstract, why didn't you simply choose another, equivalent quote, and add that instead? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Because there is no equivalent quote. Michael both criticizes and praises to a limited extent individual Luther scholars. There are two that he even does not fault at all. What he does say was represented by another quote from him. So there was no need.

Again, if you would like a copy, I'd be happy to provide you with one. I am a librarian, after all. It would amount to an interlibrary loan. --CTSWyneken 10:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Disruption

This is disruptive editing. That quote is about the book and is from a well-known writer. The quote you want to use makes the source and the intro look bad, isn't even about the book, and is from a completely unknown writer (if he's a writer at all). If you have access to so much material about Luther, as you claim to, find a quote about the book and one that sounds more intelligent. If you're unable to, that's your own fault. Do not delete appropriate, referenced material again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Please restore the Briese quote, then. There are two scholarly schools of thought on this subject. To represent one without the other is POV. May I also suggest that, since you have deleted a fair number of cited passages that you restore them if you feel this way. Can we agree on one set of rules here? --CTSWyneken 19:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The Briese quote is just a random opinion; there is no indication that it represents a scholarly school of thought. If it did, you could easily quote some prominent adherents. Pecher ^Talk 20:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

CTS, if his views do represent a significant minority, why can't you find another quote (about the book, not about Luther in general)? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I can, of course. But will that be respected? I have my doubts. --CTSWyneken 20:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I will shortly add a quote from Rupp. --CTSWyneken 10:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If you find one that makes the intro look good (as in intelligent), and it's from a published writer on the subject, and is about the book, not about Luther in general, I'm sure it'll be welcomed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Religious and racial bias

The purpose of the section "Religious or racial bias", now renamed to "Contemporary debate" strikes me as unclear. It is clear to everyone without much debate that Luther's anti-Semitism was religious, not racial, just like all the European anti-Semitism until about the mid-19th century, but it was anti-Semitism nonetheless. The Wikipedia article correctly identifies anti-Semitism as "hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group", so religious hostility toward the Jews is still anti-Semitism. Thus, I don't see any purpose in this "debate"; it is sufficient to describe Luther's views as presented in the book in question. Pecher ^Talk 20:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

However, in the debate of Antisemitism versus Antijudaism the argument revolves around race and religion. Luther opposes the Jews because they are not Christians, and he thinks that they are trying to proselytize Christians. He does not oppose Jews because he believes in the racial superiority of non-Jews. Drboisclair 00:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

David, I remember we talked about it. I can bring a ton of reputable sources stating that religious component (Anti-Judaism) is enough to qualify for anti-Semitism. Is there an authoritative opinion saying otherwise? The race is irrelevant here and those who defend ML this are using a logical fallacy (namely strawman), so please, please, stop bringing this again. (From now on, let's call it Rule 1)

That "he thinks that they are trying to proselytize Christians" is another terrible argument. Even if it is true, ML calls for violence against entire communities. Note that he is doing that while actively proselytizing Jews. (Similarly, see Rule 3). ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Please leave the "impetus" section in

Please leave the impetus section, which is some of the original material of this article when it was first put in. Editors seem to want to put in so much of what the 20th and 21st Century scholars are saying. At least leave in helpful data that speaks to the Sixteenth Century contemporaneous data surrounding the treatise. Of course, some may think that this makes Luther look too good. This is a cooperative effort, not the work of simply one POV among many.Drboisclair 23:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Write it properly if you want to include it. There was a lot of bad writing in this article and I removed some of it for good reason. As it is, it just stands there not explaining itself. What do you mean by it? Say what scholars intend when they refer to it. Say what it shows, what it implies. Place it within the narrative. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not keep reverting without addressing this concern. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

What is clearer than to state that Luther reproduced material from Lyra, Burgos, and Margaritha? What is clearer to state why he wrote the article: to counteract an anti-Christian pamphlet sent to him by Falkenau? Drboisclair 00:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you refer me to your source(s) and I will try to write it for you? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hitler

You changed the Luther and Hitler section to Luther and 20th century anti-Semitic writing. But the source compares his program to Hitler's. Who else were you thinking he is compared to? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That may be true but the source also says that Luther got material from Nicholas of Lyra, Paul of Burgos, and Anthony Margaritha. There is a valid reason for including this in this article. Drboisclair 23:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't understand your reply. You changed it from Hitler to 20th century anti-Semitism. So who in the 20th century, if not Hitler, are there alleged parallels with, according to the sources? By all means change it to a more accurate title so long as it's not one that whitewashes or uses weasel wording. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Writing this article as NPOV means to indicate that there is "alleged" parallels, not state as a fact that there are parallels. That is non NPOV. Drboisclair 23:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, you're not allowed to violate 3RR. The next time you violate it, I'm going to report it.SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Adequate sourcing has been provided that support the claims, it may be disputed, but if we wrote alleged next to every claim that is properly sourced but is disputed by someone then wikipedia would look ridiculous.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

well, actually, the second paragraph of the section is more about Luther and Streicher; Hitler isn't even mentioned (and Streicher was a fervant, practicing nut-case Jew-hater long before he encountered Hitler.) So the section title is offbase anyway. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Concern for the NPOV writing of this article

The Wikipedia article Mein Kampf presents a masterpiece of NPOV writing. The manner in which this article has been written with all of the negative rhetoric by contemporary scholars belies a POV to say, or to have Wikipedia say, "Luther was a 16th Century Hitler." Any attempt to introduce material that shows that Luther was influenced by other writers or to recast some of the captions in an unbiased manner is stymied, so in the concern for WP:NPOV I raise this concern. Drboisclair 00:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The version of the page that you and Wyneken declared yourselves satisfied with is here. It's a badly written, badly organized, poorly sourced apologia, and the impact section comes right at the end as an afterthought, quoting only Streicher, as though no one else had ever mentioned Luther's work in connection with Adolf Hitler.

If you want to create a section giving the Lutheran Church POV, go right ahead, but you must stop trying to water down or delete other POVs, because the POV of the Lutheran Church is a minority one; in fact, a tiny-minority one. There is no distinction between religious and racial anti-Semitism; it is you who wants to pretend there is. It is fine to say: "Lutheran scholars argue that there is a distinction between X and Y." It is not fine to write the article as though that distinction is accepted by everyone. Anti-Semitism is another word for Judenhass. It matters not what the motivation for that hatred is. It is hatred. We don't distinguish between people who are prejudiced against black people on the grounds that some of their prejudices are based on X and some on Y. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to comment on a statement you have made in the former of the two paragraphs. You accuse us of writing an "apologia". We want the document to be defined as to its content in the same NPOV manner that Mein Kampf has been defined. The work cannot be supported in any way, but it should not be lampooned and misrepresented. It will never be my intention to write an apologia for this hateful work. I admit that the former version was a mess. It was a work in progress, so it should be reworked. Drboisclair 01:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Our concern is to be NPOV here. The way this article is being written is with a slanted anti-Luther bias that is driven by a POV. I don't think that it is fair to say that it is only a question of proper writing. The intent here is to say, or have Wikipedia say: "Luther was a 16th Century Hitler". I think that it is unfair and barbarous to imply that Luther scholars are not qualified to speak about this issue. I think that all of us need to examine WP:NPOV, and I mean all of us. Drboisclair 00:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If you feel that way, create a new section defending him. Call it "Lutheran Church response," and you can write it from their POV, so long as you make sure it really is their POV and not your own, and you do that by carefully citing your sources. I don't think anyone would object to that. What I object to is your attempt to present the Lutheran Church position as though it's the majority position, when it manifestly is not. Once you've done that, we can step back and judge whether the article is balanced overall. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This article should be titled the "Paul Halsall-Robert Michael view of On the Jews and Their Lies." This is not objective nor NPOV. Maybe it should be so relocated to an article titled: Michael/Halsall View of On the Jews and Their Lies (Martin Luther). You could then link it from the main article. I don't want to write an article on the Lutheran Church response, because the Lutheran Church is also negative on this article, but they are NPOV in their views. Besides, it is not a question of church here, but of Luther scholars. Halsall and Michael are not Luther scholars, and they represent a POV. Drboisclair 00:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected, Bainton's words are still in there, sorry. Drboisclair 00:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Then write a section entitled whatever you want: "Minority position," "Other views," "Criticism of the mainstream position," whatever. My point is that you must stop trying to undermine the other sections. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

May I ask you a germane question: have you read the document On the Jews and Their Lies? I guess that it doesn't matter one way or the other. Drboisclair 01:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter at all, actually -- our own opinions or responses to the book are totally irrelevant. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your participation in this project. I have liked the things that you have done on Wikipedia. Drboisclair 01:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The cover of the 2004 book

This is clearly a lampoon. I don't possess a copy of this book, but I think that one should acquire one to see if it violates the copyright. Of course, that does not concern us here. Its inclusion here is a 20th Century caricature. Drboisclair 01:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Well, not really -- it's a 19th century engraving (by Gustave Doré). --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? Yes, you're right. I wonder if it is appropriate to put Doré's work on the cover of a work by Luther. I guess that Doré should be put in the category: Antisemitic people if he isn't already. Drboisclair 01:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Putting a 19th-century anti-Jewish illustration of a 17th-century anti-Jewish folk myth on the cover of a 20th-century edition of a 16th-century anti-Jewish book is an interesting juxtaposition, but I don't really see how it belongs here except as propaganda; the only connection between the engraving and the book is in the point of view of the publisher of the book. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur with you on this. As a Luther scholar myself I would like to get a copy of it, perhaps I can get it from Amazon or ebay. It may be a new translation. Drboisclair 01:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's Amazon's page. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, even more irony. It's published by Liberty Bell Press, which is dedicated to republishing the works of the remarkable Revilo P. Oliver. Perhaps we really don't want it here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It's here because it's the cover of the edition currently available. It's quite standard to illustrate pages about books using their current covers. If we didn't do it here, we'd be making an exception and I see no reason to do that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. You do understand that this is, essentially, promoting a publication of the National Vanguard. That's who "Liberty Bell Publications" is now. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't realize that. I looked it up on Amazon and that's what they took me to. I'll take another look. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Josh. I found this about the publisher. Should we delete the cover, or is the fact that they're publishing it something that should go in the article? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with antisemitic caricature, as long as we indicate it as such. Articles on Anti-Semitism, Neo-Nazism, etc. contain such images (including bookcovers) and I don't think this serves as promotion. IMHO, the best way to fight hatred is to expose it, not to hide it. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I've sent for a copy of this neo-nazi edition via interlibrary loan. You'll understand if I really don't want to fund such organizations. I'll let you know what I find re: the copyright status of it. --CTSWyneken 09:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This edition is proving difficult to get. Only two libraries in the country have it. One copy is off the shelf, the other no-circulating. I'll have to call a librarian on this. --CTSWyneken 12:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Intro again

CTSW, could you find a quote for the intro that is about the book, as the title of the article states? The Rupp quote you added is fine for the body of the text, or for Martin Luther and the Jews (better there in fact), but not appropriate for the intro of an article about this specific book. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It is directly relevant. Johnson is saying the work paves the way for Hitler, Rupp says Luther does not. I thought we agreed above that your rule is too picky.

Nevertheless, I will keep trying. One will come later in the day. I will pull other books down off the shelf and check them, too. This will take time, however, and I ask that you show good faith and leave it in. It may not be perfect, however, others may find it acceptable. It has been in for just a few hours at most, after all. Please realize that I do have a day job, too. --CTSWyneken 12:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Alternative Quote

Here's another alternative to Rupp and Briese. I've quoted an overlong section of it to show he is talking about On the Jews. If it acceptable to you, we'll just cut it down to size and insert it. Alternatively, we can move from quotes to summaries with citations. If neither is acceptable, please keep Rupp. I will keep looking. Anyway, here it is:

Uwe Siemon-Neto disagrees, stating:

"In 1543, three years before his death, he penned his venomous book, Of the Jews and Their Lies, whose contents Lutherans ignored for centuries but came to haunt them in the aftermath of World War II and to this very day… Of course, it was the Jews, not the Germans, who suffered the kind of fate Luther predicted for them— and worse. But does this make him the Nazis’ progenitor, as his detractors assert? Clearly not. Most of Luther’s anti-Jewish diatribes were forgotten until anti-Semites dug them up in the 20th century. To suggest that Lutheran theology turned Germans into Nazis is a false charge that simply cannot be substantiated by the facts. Nazism did not spring up in solidly Lutheran countries—such as Norway or Denmark— where under German occupation Christians, including the king, pinned the Star of David on their own chests, out of solidarity with the Jews, and explicitly appealed to Luther in their resistance against Hitler.

--CTSWyneken 16:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this. How to use it depends on who Siemon-Netto is, and what was between "to this very day" and "Of course." Can you say how many sentences are missing? If not many, or none that alter the context, I'd say we could use: "[H]is venomous book ... came to haunt [Lutherans] in the aftermath of World War II and to this very day ... But does this make him the Nazis’ progenitor, as his detractors assert? Clearly not. Most of Luther’s anti-Jewish diatribes were forgotten until anti-Semites dug them up in the 20th century. To suggest that Lutheran theology turned Germans into Nazis is a false charge that simply cannot be substantiated by the facts." That's assuming Netto is a scholar in a relevant field, or notable in a relevant way. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Siemon-Neto is currently the director of two institutes, one at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis and one on Journalism at Concordia University in Bronxville, New York. He has his doctorate from Boston University under Peter L. Berger on the subject of Luther and the Jews. His dissertation has been published as "The Fabricated Luther." He also serves as Senior Religion Editor for United Press International and a free-lance correspondent and commentator on religion. I've got to run at the moment, but will track down the sentences left out of the passage and the URL to the article, which is indeed online. Not relevant directly is a bit of his biography. His parents were Nazi resistors during WWII and he spent his childhood with his grandmother so that he could be kept out of their clutches. He covered both the construction and the fall of the Berlin Wall. Does that help?--CTSWyneken 16:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Regarding the quote -- I'm curious about To suggest that Lutheran theology turned Germans into Nazis is a false charge that simply cannot be substantiated by the facts. Who is saying where that Lutheran theology turned Germans into Nazis? Seems like a bit of a straw man there. Luther's attitude toward Jews didn't arise in a vacuum; Jew-hatred in Germany is documented at least half a millenium before Luther showed up. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆

Willian Shirer, among others. --CTSWyneken 19:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but we're not citing Shirer here, are we? At any rate, the current second paragraph of the intro seems just a waste of bits to me:

British historian Paul Johnson has called On the Jews and their Lies the "first work of modern anti-Semitism, and a giant step forward on the road to the Holocaust." British Luther scholar, Gordon Rupp disagrees. "There is no trace of such a relation between Luther and Hitler. I suppose Hitler never once read a page by Luther."

The Rupp quote offered in no way contradicts the Johnson quote; there's no requirement that Hitler have been familiar with the text and content of Luther's book (and, being from Catholic lands and from a Catholic family, he's unlikely to have any exposure to it at all) for the book to have been a "giant step...to the Holocaust". But why do we need this paragraph at all? Right now, the intro goes "fact, fact, fact, fact, fact, fact, fact, someone's opinion, someone's opinion". The opinions can be brought up later; once we've brought up direct influence upon Nazi idealogy (or, at least, propaganda; one must always remember that Streicher was a raving nutcase, far more so than most of the Nuremburg defendants), what further point is there to make in the intro? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

At this point, I'm done discussing. I will continue to collect quotes and facts here. I doubt they will remain in the article, for there seems to be little tolerance for any minority opinion here. --CTSWyneken 21:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You're quite wrong, there's not only a tolerance of it, but a requirement for it. But it has to be presented as the minority view, and not be allowed to inform the way the whole article is written. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Fuller Version of the Alternative Quote

In 1543, three years before his death, he penned his venomous

book, Of the Jews and Their Lies, whose contents Lutherans ignored for centuries but came to haunt them in the aftermath of World War II and to this very day. He demanded, much like Pfefferkorn, that all synagogues be destroyed “with fire and sulfur”; that the Jews’ private homes be razed; that all their liturgical books and Bibles be confiscated; that Jews not be permitted to attend divine service and any religious instruction by their rabbis, lest they risk execution; that they must not utter God’s name; that they are forbidden to work as merchants and move freely in public; that usury be outlawed and Jews be deprived of money and valuables; that young Jews, male or female, be compelled to do hard labor. So he was an anti-Semite after all, wasn’t he? He was not. Anti-Semites are racists, and racists appeared on the scene much later in history—after the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. Luther did not think of Jews in ethnic terms; his bias was religious. Just before his death he admonished the princes to treat converts from Judaism as brethren. Earlier, he had ridiculed the Catholic prohibition against a Christian marrying a Jew. He made clear that he was not bothered with what later would be called “miscegenation” (interbreeding of persons of different racial backgrounds) in the American South: “As I am allowed to eat, drink, sleep, go out, ride, speak and do business with a heathen, Jew, Turk or heretic, so I may also marry and remain in that state, and do not worry about the stupid laws that forbid such things.” All this does not allay his harsh words against the Jews, though. What made him turn against the very people to whom Jesus belonged? Historians attribute this primarily to two factors: First, Luther was, at the end of his life, immensely frustrated because the Jews would not accept the Gospel even after he had cleaned it up; second, he was very ill, in permanent pain and generally disenchanted. Consider, too, that Luther lived 300 years before Britain’s Queen Victoria, the mother of political correctness. In his day and beyond, people did not mince words. Read the foul language his contemporaries and their successors used from the pulpit anywhere—even in Puritan New England; they would make us prim post-Victorians blush. In fact, Luther reserved some of his choice invectives for his own people. He called Germans “brutal, furious savages,” compared them with monkeys aping everybody else. Germans, he said, were gluttons and boozers who should consider their frequent bouts of fever a medicine preventing them from drinking and eating themselves to death. He vilified Germans just as much as the Jews for rejecting the Gospel, predicting that God would punish them, too. “Deaf, blind and obdurate of heart,” these shameful German despisers of the Gospel might as well give up all hope. Of course, it was the Jews, not the Germans, who suffered the kind of fate Luther predicted for them—and worse. But does this make him the Nazis’ progenitor, as his detractors assert? Clearly not. Most of Luther’s anti-Jewish diatribes were forgotten until anti-Semites dug them up in the 20th century. To suggest that Lutheran theology turned Germans into Nazis is a false charge that simply cannot be substantiated by the facts. Nazism did not spring up in solidly Lutheran countries—such as Norway or Denmark— where under German occupation Christians, including the king, pinned the Star of David on their own chests, out of solidarity with the Jews, and explicitly appealed to Luther in their resistance against Hitler.

• Page twenty is the text of the LCMS’ renounciation of the words of Luther about Jews. --CTSWyneken 19:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Thanks. And, indeed, if an article states that Lutheran theology turned Germans into Nazis, the quote would be a useful refutation of that idea. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Wow, that's a pretty damning condemnation of the reliablity of Uwe Siemon-Netto as a source. To begin with, he somehow claims that Germany was not a real "Lutheran" country, even though Germany (the source and mainstay of Lutheranism) was the country with, by far, the single largest number of Lutherans. In addition, he repeats the myth that the King of Denmark and others wore a Star of David out of solidarity with Jews, which any simple investigation shows is merely a fable, particularly as the Jews of Denmark were never forced to wear the Star of David in the first place. As for Norway, well, aside from Quisling, the roundups and incarceration of the male Jews of Norway started as early as 1941, and continued throughout 1942, duly supported by Norwegian police. On November 25 1942 all the women, children, elderly, sick etc. Jews of Oslo were also rounded up, and shipped eventually to Auschwitz. Regular arrests etc. continued after that, until 1945; almost half of Norway's Jewish population was killed in the death camps, and most of the rest only survived because they escaped to Sweden. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Just as a point of interest per Jayjg's comment, here is Snopes on the urban legend about the King of Denmark wearing a yellow star. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 16:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If you'd like, I could put you in contact with him. I'm by far not an expert on the events of the Holocaust. What he says about Germany not being a Lutheran country is correct. Germany never went completely over to the Reformation. northern states, as a rule did, southern states, as a rule, remained Catholic or went with the Swiss reformed. By the Twentieth Century, with government forced union of the Reformed and Lutheran church bodies, little remained of either's distinctive doctrines. There were, to be sure, Lutherans in Germany, and sadly many of them not only did not resist the Nazis and some actually became Nazis. The one Sasse we quote is one of the worst. His point? You need to look to the Scandinavian churches to see, if it can be measured, the effect of Luther's and Lutheran theology on it's people and their response to Nazism. In fact, it is Scandinavia that was, ironically, the most Lutheran area in the world at the time. This is not as suprising as you think. There are few Buddhists in India, when Buddhism was born. There are some, but relatively few Christians in Israel, where it was born. So also with Germany and Lutheranism.

Of course, Protestant bodies in Germany rightlyt point out in their confessions of guilt, this does not absolve Lutherans who did not resist from the guilt of their complicity in the Holocaust. Were that many more followed Dietrich Bonhoeffer and his fellow confessors, who defied Hitler and his bishops. It does point out, though, that we cannot draw conclusions from national behavior to that of any one church body.

It is also the third scholar I've quoted who does not believe their is a causal link between Luther's treatise and the rise of Nazism.

Still coming, when time permits, is a fuller context for Briese's quote and quotations from other scholars. I've got to attend to things other than wikipedia today and the next few days, so this and other edits on the Luther pages will slow down markedly for now.

I also do not intend to get into a debate over this. Accept or reject what you will. --CTSWyneken 15:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Siemon-Netto doesn't seem to have even the most basic knowledge of the things he's writing about. I'm not sure we should use him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Intro yet again

Could someone explain the relationship between these two sentences, and the relationship of the second to the article (i.e. the book)? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

British historian Paul Johnson has called On the Jews and their Lies the "first work of modern anti-Semitism, and a giant step forward on the road to the Holocaust." British Luther scholar, Gordon Rupp, has argued that "t]here is no trace of such a relation between Luther and Hitler. I suppose Hitler never once read a page by Luther."

Since you made the reversion of "disagrees" for "has argued that" you removed the relationship between the two sentences. Paul Johnson alleges a connection between Luther and Hitler, and G. Gordon Rupp disagrees. You might want to add the left square bracket to the quotation. Drboisclair 23:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No, Johnson makes no such connection, at least not in the quote. He makes the connection between Luther and the Holocaust; certainly, Hitler was the catalyst for the Holocaust, but he was arguably not the cause of the Holocaust. To heck with it; I'm just cutting out the entire paragraph, as I've suggested above. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Johnson doesn't say anything about Hitler. But if you want to make it about Hitler, does anyone object to the provenance of this quote: It is easy to see how Luther prepared the way for Hitler. Dr. William Temple, Archbishop of Canterbury (The Archbishop's Conference, Malvern, London, 1941, page 13). I'm asking because I haven't seen it in context; I'm taking it from some websites. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

By Jove, I think she's got it! I think that such a statement really "cuts to the quick" as they say. Drboisclair 23:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Does that mean you accept it's a real quote? I'm checking because I don't know, and I don't like taking material from websites. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Siemon-Netto in The Fabricated Luther quotes those words as well on page 44, but unfortunately does not give any more context. More context would help. Maybe one could secure a copy of this apparent periodical. Drboisclair 23:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. So long as I know a serious writer has quoted it, I feel better about it. But yes, context would be good. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Here's the full citation from Melvyl:

Record number:         1
System number: 007710239
PT Conference
PT Book
CA Malvern Conference Malvern College)
MT Malvern, 1941: the life of the church and the order of society;
   being the proceedings of the Archbishop of York's conference.
PL London,PL New York [etc.]
PB Longmans, Green and co.
DP [1942]
PH xv, 235 p. 23 cm.
LO Graduate Theological Union SFTS Lib BT738 .M3 1941a GTU
ZZ

Probably someone can just beg someone at the GTU Library to send an offprint of the article. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Josh. That's very helpful. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Luther's Hatred of Jews as a Race

There is much evidence that Jews were considered a "race" from the start of Chrstian times. Evidence is found in St. Augustine, St. Isidore of Seville, Peter the Venerable, St. Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, and institutionalized in the Church long before Poliakov's "Spain of the Inquisition."

“Not only did institutionalized racism begin in 15th-century Spain (the Inquisition ran from the late 15th through the early 19th centuries), but I would argue that a Christian racism can be detected as early as the 4th century in Sts. Augustine and John Chrysostom. Moreover, is not the belief in inherent and inherited traits what characterizes 19th-century racism as well, the same emphasis on evil vs good blood occurs among the Spanish, and is implied in Luther, as well as 19th-century writers.” Ref:: Michael. racial antisemitism vs mala sangre. Apr 1997

Luther wrote of the Jews as if they were a race that could not truly convert to Christianity. Indeed, like so many Christian writers before him, Luther, by making the Jews the devil's people, put them beyond conversion. Trying to convert the Jews, he argued, was like "trying to cast out the devil . . .."43 "They have failed to learn any lesson from the terrible distress that has been theirs for over fourteen hundred years in exile. . . . If these blows do not help, it is reasonable to assume that our talking and explaining will help even less. . . . Much less do I propose to convert the Jews, for that is impossible."44 In a sermon of 25 September 1539, Luther tried to demonstrate through several examples that individual Jews could not convert permanently,45 and in several passages of The Jews and Their Lies, Luther appeared to reject the possibility that the Jews would or could convert.”

Luther writes: "Oh, that was too insulting for the noble blood and race of Israel …"

"Jews boast of their circumcision before God, presuming that God should regard them graciously for that reason, though they should certainly know from Scripture that they are not the only race circumcised in compliance with God's decree, and that they cannot on that account be God's special people."

"And still they claim to be God's servants and to stand before him. They are the boastful, arrogant rascals who to the present day can do no more than boast of their race and lineage, praise only themselves, and disdain and curse all the world in their synagogues, prayers, and doctrines."

"They boast of their race and of their descent from the fathers, but they neither see nor pay attention to the fact that he chose their race that they should keep his commandments."

I've also pointed out how scholars describe the evidence of Luther's Jew hatred in his early works like his Spalatin Letters. But more importantly, please consider In his 1543 work, On the Jews and their Lies, Luther asks, "What then shall we do with this damned, rejected race of Jews?." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_Luther_and_the_Jews&diff=30686984&oldid=29637948

And, of course, this was immediately deleted by StanZegel several times http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_Luther_and_the_Jews&diff=next&oldid=30686984 and then by Humus sapiens http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_Luther_and_the_Jews&diff=next&oldid=30911747 Doright 00:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't want to get into the discussion whether ML was a racist in the modern sense or not, and I explained why on talk, with the support of WP:RS. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You should be happy. I added germane information to Nicholas of Lyra who wrote: Pulcherrimae quaestiones Iudaicam perfidam in catholicam fide improbantes. I think that the whole truth should be brought out in history. Drboisclair 00:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious. Do we have any knowledge of contemporary responses to Luther's treatise? Was it considered extraordinary? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. By and large, they were horrified. I had a section that Slim deleted from an article that traced the history of the use of On the Jews... through the beginning of the 17th Century. The article goes through the twentieth. For twenty-five years, no one reprinted it. After twenty-five years, only a few editions were printed. Then silence. No printing of the treatise in popular editions until just before the Nazi era. Other, vicious, antisemitic diatribes were issued, but none referred to Luther (if memory serves) Only That Jesus Christ Was Born A Jew saw play. Then, when the Nazis discovered it, they used it after the fact to justify their horrors. If you can find the information, it is the Wallmann (sp?)article Lutheran Quarterly. In the morning, I will dig it up. Providing, of course, Slim will not delete it again. I get tired of doing work that isn't good enough. I have a theological journal issue to finish fact checking, and I can't afford a waste of effort. --CTSWyneken 03:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, regardless of how much of it ends up in the article (I can't judge until I know what's there; perhaps you could look at the history and point me to the deleted material you refer to), I'd like to know more about it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk:On the Jews and Their Lies (Martin Luther)#Query has the info deleted from this page. Similar info from the same article is at Martin Luther and the Jews#16th and 17th century. Additions from this essay was interrupted by activity at work, which took me away from it and I wandered off to other wiki projects when things eased. If I put this material back and finish summarizing it, however, I will not be happy to have it dissmissed, deleted and attacked. --CTSWyneken 10:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's important material -- the immediate impact of the treatise is informative. However, there's no guaratee that your work won't be "dismissed, deleted ,and attacked"; this is Wikipedia, and that's one of the more unpleasant risks one takes if one chooses to edit here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't put it back as it was. Perhaps you could open up a user subpage for drafts, then add material to the article when it's ready. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)