Talk:Martin Luther and antisemitism/Archive 2

message: This discussion has been archived on a separate page: talk:Martin Luther/Luther and Antisemitism
Where it says the Lutheran Church has repudidated Luther's anti-Semitism, it needs to indicate which Lutheran church.  There are several denominations in the U.S. alone that are Lutheran, and certainly there are large Lutheran churches in Europe.
:Can someone help me find the above referenced archive?  Thank you in advance for your assistance. Doright 22:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  AFAIK, this is a redirect pointing here. It refers to old discussions that I am now moving into Archive 1. Please add new topics at the bottom. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luther and Antisemitism

message: As pointed out by other editors Anti-Semitism comprises prejudice not only against Jewish people but also against other "Semites" like the Arabs. IMHO, drboisclair 17:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this is a mistake.  The meaning of the word anti-Semitism cannot be inferred from its components (there are no such thing as "Semitic people," only "Semitic languages" and we all agree that anti-Semitism is not a hatred of Semitic languages), but rather from how the person who coined it defined it, and how people have used it sence.  And they have used it to mean "hatred of the Jewish race."  There happen to be Arab anti-Semites, and anti-Semites who have no hatred towards Arabs, for example.  Of course it is quite possible for someone to be both an anti-Semite and a racist hater of Arabs.  But then calling that person an "anti-Semite" would be inadequate: you would have to say "that man is a racist: besides being anti-Semitic, he also hates Arabs." Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that clarification. By saying that there are no "Semitic people" does one leave the Biblical division of Semitic, Hamitic, and Japhetic (Genesis 10)? In asking this I am not advocating a return to such a reckoning; however, I do hold to the historical accuracy of the Bible. I accept that "Anti-Semitism" refers to prejudice and hatred of the Jewish people: is that accurate? drboisclair 19:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  IMHO, the phrase It has been argued that his sentiments are anti-Judaic rather than anti-Semitic, i.e. they do not stem from a racial or ethnic negative bias but a religious position. has 2 problems: 1) it doesn't reflect our mutual understanding that his position was indeed anti-Semitic based on religious rather than racial grounds, and 2) weasel wording "It has been argued that..." - by whom? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 21:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I wrote those words, and I vacate them as error. I believe that On the Jews and Their Lies is Anti-Semitic. If it were Anti-Judaic, it would not propose a systematic program to suppress Jews. "It has been argued by ..." the authors of The Forum Letter who wanted to mitigate On the Jews and Their Lies. Richard John Neuhaus and Roland Bainton are the only two that I know of who have put forward this argument. Bainton, indirectly, in that he said that the intent was not racial/ethnic prejudice but religious zeal. They argued this way in good faith because from Luther's other works they assumed that Luther did not have the same motivation of say, an Adolf Hitler. As the author of this sentence I believe that it should be stricken from this article. This seems to be the state of things: 1. Luther believed that the Jews did not have the opportunity to become Christians because they were persecuted by Western medieval cultures and the church, 2. The Jews did not know what Luther believed to be the pure Gospel because it had been obscured for so long by the papacy, 3. Luther's reformatory discovery was novel to his time and, in his opinion, afforded the Jews the opportunity to be converted to Christianity, 4. they did not convert and he, Luther, alleges that some of them slandered Christ and the Virgin Mary, so 5. he wrote On the Jews and Their Lies. If you read the introduction to Luther's Small Catechism you will find that Luther is somewhat harsh on catechumens who refuse to learn the catechism: "If any refuse to receive your instructions, tell them that they deny Christ and are no Christians. They should not be admitted to the sacrament, be accepted as sponsors in Baptism, or be allowed to participate in any Christian privileges. On the contrary, they should be turned over to the pope and his officials, and even to the devil himself. In addition, parents and employers should refuse to furnish them with food and drink and should notify them that the prince is disposed to banish such rude people from his land." This is amplified in On the Jews and Their Lies. Does this shed some light? Respectfully submitted by drboisclair 01:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Semitism implies prejudice against more ethnic groups 

message: Since the paragraph mentioned in the above section was written by me in the Martin Luther article, I have taken the liberty to modify it. I think that one should not use this putative distinction to mitigate the reprehensible character of On the Jews and Their Lies. I did not intend for this paragraph to be inserted in this new article; however, if POV issues are taken care of and assertions are supported by evidence, then it may elicit thought and discussion. drboisclair 02:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change made in Anti-Judaism/Anti-Semitism supposed distinction 

message: First, let me say that I abhor Luther's angry, hateful words on the Jews (for that matter, on the Pope, Anabaptists, Turks, etc.) and think they should never have been said. On the other hand, they are not suprising in an era that burned heretics at the stake, that sponsored the Spanish Inquisition and subjugation of the New World, in which Aztecs sacraficed the still-beating hearts of enemies on the altars of their gods, etc. Luther transcended his age in so many ways, you would hope he would have transcended it in this matter, but he did not.
I think we need to set the context. Does anyone object?
--CTSWyneken 12:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem here. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 12:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

text: What kind of context are you referring to? Don't forget, this is a sub-article of Martin Luther, which gives plenty of context. Jayjg (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't object to mentioning context in some way. But it should be relatively brief, and not a case of hugging every example of his antisemitism with a long apologia about how things were so different at the time. Babajobu 17:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Go for it. Babajobu 02:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  CTSWyneken, don't forget to add citations, or someone will end up removing it. Babajobu 13:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest we add something on the context of the times 

message: How could this work still be in copyright, exactly? If it's not, let's put the link back up. Babajobu 16:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't copyright issues need to be worked out by the proprietor of the given site and the owner of the copyright? It doesn't seem reasonable for us to examine the copyright status of each site we link to. That's not possible, really, and I can't imagine that it is legally required of us. Babajobu 16:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, however, if permission has not been secured, the argument runs that you do not want to contribute by linking to that page. Yes, Wikipedia, does not need to address this. The argument is that Wikipedia does not want to get into trouble for linking to a page that has not obtained permission. As you know with the "Project Gutenberg" Wikipedia cannot link directly to the document. drboisclair 17:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't know this about Project Gutenberg...and this is because we don't trust their content's copyright status? Or because they want us linking to their site, and not directly to their files? So then how do we decide whether or not to link to any other site? Case-by-case basis, if an editor has doubts about copyright status, then they kill the link? Doesn't seem practical to me, and I still have a hard time believing we would "get in trouble" for linking to a site that ended up having copyright issues. This is for their lawyers to work out...no one could really expect us to hire lawyers to examine all of our external links. Babajobu 17:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

text:  Wikipedia does this with Project Gutenberg because of the cooperative relationship with them and at PG's request. My guess is that PG may not always offer the texts online in full as they are. As far as copyright is concerned PG is overly careful, and never violates copyright law--at least not as far as they know. I have linked to other sites on the internet in articles that I have written; however, more research needs to be done. Maybe we need to review Wikipedia's policy on linking to copyrighted material. drboisclair 18:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just asked about this in the wikipedia IRC channel. User:Smoddy says that this issue was addressed on the Wikipedia mailing list, and they basically came to your conclusion of "better safe than sorry". So the link stays off. We can add an offline reference to the book. I'll do that. Babajobu 18:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

text:  This is good. One might want to follow the internal link On the Jews and Their Lies in order to tell more about the work. drboisclair 19:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That was the other suggestion, that we write a stub (or article) on On the Jews and Their Lies. I'm not going to be able to do either that or a ref right now, you're welcome to give em a crack, if not I'll try later. Regards, Babajobu 19:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Fordham University claims to have received permission to post the translation (see bottom of page at their website) at the Medieval Sourcebook.  I don't see that there would be a problem linking to their site. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 06:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright status of ''On the Jews and Their Lies'' 

message: :: I've adjusted the language in the main article to improve flow. The only thing someone might object to is the removal of the Johnson quote. I believe the substance of it is in the text and the citation provides the verification that someone respected view things this way. I have no objection to further tweaks, nor, if others feel the actual quote contributes something, to restoring it. --CTSWyneken 12:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some adjustments made this morning to make the article easier to read. --CTSWyneken 11:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Will be copy-pasting in some context from a document we produced here. I'll comment it out until I can adjust it to fit wikipedia and our article. --CTSWyneken 11:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adjustments to Main Article's Summary of this article 

message: It has been proven to me that the idea that there is much controversy over Luther and Antisemitism is not true in the wider world of academia. I have taken the liberty of removing this idea from the two Luther articles this one and Martin Luther. I would invite inspection and modification as needed. Humbly submitted by the undersigned.
--drboisclair 17:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "Controversy" and "Controversial" 

message: I think that this matter deserves a separate caption. I think that we should set the matter straight that it is a mistake to generalize that much of Luther's work is antisemitic or that it contains antisemitism unless one would argue that promoting Christianity is antisemitic. Luther's On the Jews and Their Lies is antisemitic because of what it proposes; however, if antisemitism also involves the motivation of the author, then it is apparent that Luther's motive is not the same as that of vicious 20th Century antisemites. Luther labors under his historical celebrity in having much of what he wrote and said "preserved" for posterity. Unfortunately for him, the filth and garbage that his opponents wrote against him is either lost or conveniently hidden in out of print, obscure volumes gathering dust somewhere in Europe. Luther said that they could burn everything he wrote other than his De servo arbitrio and his catechisms. We are chastised to employ the best of our encyclopedic skill in composing articles. Avoiding generalizations as well as false generalizations is also in the best tradition of encyclopedic composition. drboisclair 13:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Error of Characterizing "Much" of Luther's Work as Antisemitic 

message: Dear user:CTSWyneken, you are making it very difficult to follow the dialog here.  Please sign your comments.  When you intersperse your comments in another editor's text and do not sign your name you create confusion. In the many interspersed places where you have made unsigned comments, please go back and sign them using 3 tildes. Also, please note that it is customary to indent your replies. It does help the reader.   Thank you in advance. Doright 19:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry about that. I typically try to keep these things signed and indented, buth sometimes loose track in these interwoven discussions... I'll try to keep things sorted out a bit better in the future. --CTSWyneken 20:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please sign your comments 

message: Am I the only one who doesn't like the new title? I would prefer Martin Luther and the Jews: it is easier to find, it is more to the point and it avoids apostrophe. Also the current title limits the scope only to "statements". ←Humus sapiens←ну? 12:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Luther and the Jews is a better title, too. It better describes the content of the article, which should be all about Luther's relationship with the Jews, the issue of anti-semitism v. anti-judaism and all of the fallout concerning it. --CTSWyneken 12:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree as well; the new title is terrible, and there was no consensus for the move. Jayjg (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I appreciate the work. --CTSWyneken 01:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The new title 

message: I have spoken with the Permissions department at Augsburg Fortress Press, the copyright holders of this translation of On the Jews and their Lies. They affirm that they hold the rights to this work and that they have never given permission to post the text on the internet. Therefore, we should not link to any version of this translation online. We should quote from the physical copy of the work or translate from the original German. Several editors of this and the main article have taken this up with wikipedia authorities before and they have reported back agreement with my position in this matter. I have removed the links. --CTSWyneken 01:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright of <cite>On the Jews</cite> 

message: AS EXPECTED, CTSWyneken HAS PROVIDE ZERO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS REPEATED CENSORING OF "On the Jews and their Lies" FROM WIKIPEDIA USERS.
FORDHAM STATES THE BOOK IS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN And the US Copyright Office has no evidence of of his claim.  Yet, CTS is repeatedly preventing Wiki users access to this essential historical and scholarly document.  This is gross misconduct.  Stop it. 
"The Internet History Sourcebooks are collections of PUBLIC DOMAIN and copy-permitted historical texts presented cleanly (without advertising or excessive layout) for educational use." []
:: By definition, no one can copyright public domain works, nor does anyone meed permission to anything they would like with them. A source, like this one, that claims copyright in PD works is at best untrustworthy. --CTSWyneken 02:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear colleague, They claim just the opposite. Fordham Univertsity SOURCE SAYS THERE IS NO COPYRIGHT. It is you that is claiming copyright of PD works, not them.Doright 17:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  1983 is not the renewal date for this copyright! The Copyright is 1971, and 28 years after that date is 1999! They need to research this more. drboisclair 18:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please note that all copyrights for works published after 1964 had their copyrights automatically renewed by congress. See section on copyright below. --CTSWyneken 19:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  CTSWyneken Stop Deleting Links to Fordham University and other Scholarly Sources that are in the Public Domain 

message: Can anyone provide a verifiable reference to a scholar that has denied that Luther was a major contributor to antisemitism? (antisemitism means hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group[]) Doright
:Richard Marius. Luther (Lippencott, 1974): "Luther never organized any campaign against the Jews, and, as Heiko Oberman has said, despite the ferocity of his tirades against them he never 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." p. 380 
: More to come tomorrow. --CTSWyneken 03:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for trying, but this is NOT evidence that Richard Marius denied Luther was a major contributor to antisemitism.  He merely says, Luther never organized any "campaign" against the Jews and that Luther believed that despite the "race" of the Jew, he could still be converted.  Marius' usage of "modern anti-Semitism" is a technical code word for discrimination against Jews as a racial group for which conversion is inadequet. This is, of course, according to the definition provided by Websters, only one of the serveral criteria for antisemitism of which only 1 has to be met to be considered antisemitism. Doright 09:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, CTSWyneken is a professional theologian and an expert at library science. I think we should avoid the ad hominems here. It must be brought out that the use others make of works written in the past is no grounds for blaming the author. This is similar to blaming Machiavelli for being "a major contributor to facism." Luther's works were used by 20th Century anti-semites. We need to be careful about clarification here. drboisclair 19:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Nahum Norbert Glatzer, Prof. of Jewish History, Brandeis University. In "Anti-Semitism," Funk and Wagnalls New Encyclopedia vol. 2:198-201, does not mention Martin Luther or his writings at all. --CTSWyneken 12:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Bertram, Martin H. "Introduction." Luther's Works v. 47:136: "The immediate effect of Luther's proposals thus was small; it remained for a later century to refine and systematize them and apply them on a massive scale." --CTSWyneken 15:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dear colleague, your own citation here from Bertram supports the assertion that Luther was a contributor to antisemitism.  In fact your own quote says that LUTHER'S PROPOSALS were applied on a MASSIVE SCALE.  The term I use in my proposed intro is "major." If you rather says that Luther's contributions were massive rather than major, I will not object.Doright 18:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Kittelson, James M. Luther the Reformer Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1986, p. 274: "Luther never became an anti-Semite in the modern, racial sense of the term. In March 1538 he published a Letter against the Sabbatarians in which he declared that the Jews could not be the people of God because they were still waiting for the Messiah to come. Luther was anti-Jewish in the sense that he opposed anyone who taught contrary to his doctrine. But, as with so many of his other opponents, he could never let the issue go." --CTSWyneken 21:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Colleague, again your citation supports exactly the opposite of what you claim.  Your Kittelson reference merely asserts that Luther's antisemitism was not based on race, but that it was based upon religion.  Again, please recall the definition of antisemitism does not require it to be based upon race.  Rather it can be based upon RACE OR ETHNICITY OR RELIGION.  Clearly Luther meets the religious criterion. Doright 18:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  Perhaps a source that claims "Luther was a major contributor to antisemitism." might be produced. --CTSWyneken 02:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources of Scholars that deny Luther was a major contributor to antisemitism

message: There is some good language here that can be used, but it needs to be adjusted to comply with WP:NPOV, "Why should Wikipedia be unbiased?", paragraph 2. In addition, considering the debate this topic raises, citations to scholarly sources need to be restored. --CTSWyneken 11:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This has now been set to a more NPOV, non-inflammatory intro. --StanZegel   (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, yes, but it also introduces precious little information. - Nunh-huh 02:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro as of Morning 15 December 2005 

message: I have cleaned up this article yet again.  The article was a mess, with much duplicated material, unused footnotes, different footnoting systems etc.  As well, the structure was confused.  It now has a simple, factual, un-inflammatory, non-apologetic introduction which explains the topic of the article.  It then has a section listing his statements about the Jews.  It then has a section listing various views about his statements.  I then lists Lutheran church reactions to them.  It contains no extraneous material.  Now, could the anti-Luther editors please stop trying to get condemnations of him into the intro, or as prominently placed as possible, and could the Lutheran apologists please stop trying to get excuses for his statements into the intro, or as prominently placed as possible? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Jayg. That is indeed a well-balanced intro and nicely written. I can live with it if the others can. --CTSWyneken 16:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am gratified by your outstanding help on this article. Your neutrality is exemplary. drboisclair 02:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ro-organization 

message: === 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, 
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 
Therefore, Augsburg Fortress is correct; the still hold the copyright in this work.--CTSWyneken 15:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Copyright and <cite>On the Jews and Their Lies</cite> 

message: Verso of the Title Page, Luther's Works, Vol. 47, "The Christian in Society": (c) 1971 Fortess Press, Library of Congress Number 55-9893, 
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 
Therefore, Augsburg Fortress is correct; the still hold the copyright in this work.--CTSWyneken 15:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status 

message: 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."  
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  The volume in Which "On the Jews..." appears was published in 1971.
--CTSWyneken 15:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Online searches not sufficient to establish status 

message: I called the publisher. To verify, You are welcome to call Augsburg Fortress also. http://www.augsburgfortress.org/copyrights/contact.asp 
I have an inquiry in to Fordham as well. Will report back what they say.
--CTSWyneken 15:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Publisher claims never gave permission 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Short quotes fair use 

message: I just asked about this in the wikipedia IRC channel. User:Smoddy says that this issue was addressed on the Wikipedia mailing list, and they basically came to your conclusion of "better safe than sorry". So the link stays off. We can add an offline reference to the book. I'll do that. Babajobu 18:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earlier Report of Wikipedia Consensus 

message: They have not researched the copyright date of the Martin Bertram translation of "Von den Juden und Ihren Luegen". The copyright date of that translation is 1971, so it would expire in 1999, not in 1983 as Fordham claims on their posting of this document. Universities can be wrong about things because people make mistakes. I wonder if they know about the American Edition of Luther's Works and if they have looked at the copyright page. They have probably gotten off the track by assuming that the copyright date for all of the American Edition of Luther's Works is 1955, which it isn't. Each volume has its own copyright date FYI.drboisclair 18:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fordham University in error 

message: Our article quotes Kittelson on Luther's correspondence with Josel of Rosheim: "There was no anti-Semitism in this response. Moreover, Luther never became an anti-Semite in the modern, racial sense of the term." 
A brief look at 1537: The Josel Of Rosheim Controversy and our own article gives quite a different picture. I also read about it in some book recently. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't gotten this far into the article yet, so I can't get into this aspect quite yet. What I would suggest, in light of how emotional this issue is, is that we allow the scholars we quote draw conclusions from them. We should make sure that their voices are heard on all the issues. In this way, the reader can decide how they want to see the issues involved. It is all too easy to simply let Luther off the hook or assume he had no redeeming qualities. Truth is often somewhere in between. --CTSWyneken 12:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Josel of Rosheim controversy 

message: For some reason the footnotes were all mixed up in this article. I have straightened them out. I think that it would be helpful for the Daniel Goldhagen block quotation to be referenced. Either referenced or not, I am not opposed to leaving it in the article. drboisclair 17:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks David. I may have contributed to that mess. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 23:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Readjusted the footnotes 

message: The theme of the article should be "what did Luther write about Jews, how have his writings been interpreted, what motivations did he have for these writings, and what consequences have these writings had." - Nunh-huh 02:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nunh-huh's Outline of the Article Proposal 

message: Building upon the shoulders of giants, I favor this version of intro:
Martin Luther's anti-Jewish rhetoric and doctrines are often described as anti-Semitism or anti-Judaism. Luther recognizing that a millennium of Christian persecution of the Jews was not completely effective in achieving their conversion initially suggested the use of a gentler approach in his essay, “That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew.”  However, when his efforts to persuade the Jews to abandon the faith of their fathers with what he saw as "Christian love" failed, he reverted to antisemtic libels and recommended the total persecution of the Jews. Buoyed by four more centuries of Christian antisemitism following Luther, the Nazis used his treatise On the Jews and Their Lies (1543) to rally Christians in support of their genocidal programs.  Since the 1980s, some Lutheran church bodies and organizations have begun a process of formally disassociating themselves from certain aspects of these writings.
Luther recognizing that a millennium of Christian persecution of the Jews was not completely effective in achieving their conversion initially suggested the use of a gentler approach in his essay, “That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew.”   Support for this view comes from Luther himself in “That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew,” and not merely from secondary sources of apologists.  I quote, “If we wish to help them, we must practice on them not the papal law, …  so that they gain the reason and opportunity to be with and among us and to see and to hear our Christian teaching and life.
Also, I do not agree with the following intro sentence since it obfuscates the Christian milieu, deeply entrenched with antisemitism, that gave rise to BOTH Luther’s and the Nazis treatment of the Jews with widespread support from Christian populations.
   
Four centuries later, the Nazis used quotations from his pamphlet On the Jews and Their Lies (1543) to justify their attempts at genocide.
The sentence makes it seem like it just popped-up from nowhere after 400 years, whereas the undisputed historical reality is that Luther’s contributions to the long and continuing march of Christian antisemitism had been entrenched in the culture.
--Doright 20:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This paragraph is POV and unobjective. It is loaded with biased judgment, and I believe unscholarly for Wikipedia. Tell it like it is but don't color it with bias. Luther's doctrines or his interpretations of the Bible are Christian, and if the user feels that that is sufficient to make him an anti-Semite in his view, then that is his opinion. We need to be mutually understanding of each other's faiths. This statement of the previous poster: "Four centuries later, the Nazis used quotations from his pamphlet On the Jews and Their Lies (1543) to justify their attempts at genocide" betrays an inaccuracy. Luther did not propose killing Jews at all. "On the Jews and Their Lies" proposes expelling them from German land, not killing them. Luther opposed Jews because they were not Christian and because HE THOUGHT they were proselytizing and defaming Christ and Mary. Because Luther wanted to convert them shows that he was indifferent to their race or ethnicity whatever that might have been. For the Nazis there was no final solution other than murdering Jews. For Luther he wanted them converted or expelled. There is a world of difference here. Let's put aside the hatred and be more objective. drboisclair 20:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since the current introduction came by working together between four editors and since we all agreed that it was the best we can come up with and remain neutral, I oppose changing it in any way, especially in the recommendation above, which biases the intro towards one point of view among the scholars quoted in the balance of the article. Should we include this additional, POV, we would have to cite it and add the other with citation. Frankly, I would rather get on with balance of this article and then get on with other things. --CTSWyneken 01:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe I am biased, but I find the current intro more neutral and closer to hard cold facts supported by reputable quotes. But our opinions/emotions are irrelevant, we should let serious historians speak. The consensus is ML did not call for a Nazi-style genocide, so I would like to avoid expression "total persecution". ←Humus sapiens←ну? 03:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro Three 

message: Dear Humus:
I think the expansion is fine, but I have one question: do you know if the words fall within the page range we've cited, or should I check the reference? For some reason, this work is still on my desk at work in the library. 8-) --CTSWyneken 12:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know for sure. I cited the same online source (fordham) because the link was removed, so the context is not lost. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 03:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Next week when I'm back from vacation, I'll double-check the pagination. --CTSWyneken 03:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion of Luther's Recommendations Quote 

message: I've added the headings to the main article. Please take a look, fellow editors, and see what you think. --CTSWyneken 21:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the addition of these headings is helpful. One must be able to show what Luther actually held and what others say he held. drboisclair 13:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New outline added to article 

message: === D. G. Meyers ===
I've been unable to get into H-net this morning to check and complete the reference to the newly added quotation. I was, however, able to verify that D. G. Meyers is a professor teaching Holocaust Studies at Texas A & M. Will try again later. --CTSWyneken 14:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference Checks 

message: I've been unable to get into H-net this morning to check and complete the reference to the newly added quotation. I was, however, able to verify that D. G. Meyers is a professor teaching Holocaust Studies at Texas A & M. Will try again later. --CTSWyneken 14:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  D. G. Meyers 

message: Maybe we should debate about whether or not we want the quote in the article. It is in the document in question.drboisclair 10:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are all anonymous here, Dr. Even if were to edit using what we say are real names, there's no way to verify that they are. We had a case of an editor blocked recently claiming to be a known real-life person, but who had simply assumed the identity. What we become known for is our edits, and the more of them we have, the less anonymous we become, in terms of Wikipedia. Your comments, and particularly Stan's above, about another editor are inappropriate. Please concentrate only on content. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Madam, not wanting to be like the child that tells his Mum that his brother or sister is doing something wrong all the time. I think that User:Doright deserves to take into consideration your admonition as much as we do. If you are objective, you will look at some of the things he has posted against us. With respect, drboisclair 10:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of who has said what about whom, Mum recommends starting with a clean slate and concentrating only on content, with no attempt to whitewash Luther or to attack him unnecessarily. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Madam, that is all I seek, and I will endeavor to take your wise advice. Cordially, drboisclair 10:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The virtually anonymous editor strikes again 

message: Dear SlimVirgin, I believe that this quotation is unbalanced for the reasons stated by User:CTSWyneken has stated in "Need for Arbitration" subsection of Talk:Martin Luther. I believe that User:Doright is pushing his POV by including this particular quotation. There is debate as to what Luther means here. Granted that his words are indefensible, yet they need to be taken in context. I believe that either the quote should be omitted or more alternative view quotations need to be resupplied. IMHO, we should revert it to what it was previously, but I will not revert against an administrator unless there is more of a compelling reason. Respectfully, drboisclair 12:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dr, I'm here as an editor, not as an admin, but I appreciate your not reverting. I suggest we have this discussion on Talk:Martin Luther, so as not to split up the comments. I'll post something there. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: "Harsh persecution," begs the question. What was the "harsh persecution?" Please provide your list, although I think it would be better if we just used Luther's own list and words.Doright 19:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a moot point as the quotation in question now is in the article. It doesn't have to be in the introduction. drboisclair 19:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is only moot to he who is deaf.  Again, for the 7th time, What was the "harsh persecution?"  Did "harsh persecution?"  include "slaying?"Doright 19:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the Doright insertion is unbalanced 

message: I do not think that we are guilty of censorship of data--the quotation in contention IS IN THE ARTICLE, READ IT IF YOU PLEASE. As you can see from the "slaying quotation" quoted as Mr. Doright would quote it supports his and Dr. Michael's POV that Luther proposed genocide like Hitler. If you read the quotation in context, you can come out with a different conclusion. Again, it is in the article without the POV of Mr. Doright. drboisclair 19:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship 

message: Dear Friends:
In the flurry of discussion on the Martin Luther page, we began to gather scholarly opinion on whether or not Luther recommended killing the Jews or whether or not it was just rhetoric. Because this topic applies very directly here and it is easily lost on that talk page, I would like to report on my research into this question here. Please feel free to add evidence here. I would prefer, however, keeping our interpretation of the evidence out of this section and wait a week or so before commenting. I'll begin as time permits over the next few days.  --CTSWyneken 12:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Luther recommend the killing of the Jews? 

message: Martin H. Bertram. "Introduction (One the Jews and Their Lies)." in Luther's Works in Luther's Works Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971)
"Indeed, one hardly knows whether to be more astonished at the crudity of Luther's language here or at the cruelty of his proposals: let their synagogues be burnt, their houses razed, their prayerbooks seized, let them be reduced to a condition of agrarian servitude, and - as a "final solution" -- let them be expelled from the country." (Bertram, 135)--CTSWyneken 14:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Martin H. Bertram 

message: Martin Brecht, Martin Luther 3 vols. tr. James Schaaf. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993, 3:341-346
Brecht spends five pages summarizing and analyzing On the Jews He does not mention the passage from On the Jews quoted above. He does, however, say: "What Luther really intended was the expulsion of the Jews, not their deaths." (Brecht, 3:344) --CTSWyneken 16:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Martin Brecht 

message: “In "On the Jews and Their Lies," Luther clearly stated that all Jews should be murdered. "We are even at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin). We are at fault in not slaying them." Hans Hillerbrand, "Martin Luther and the Jews," in James Charlesworth, ed., Jews and Christians (New York 1990), 132. (from talk. Will verify when book arrives via ILL) Book arrived. Author is not Michael. Is Hillerbrand. Full verification pending --CTSWyneken 15:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: = Hans Hillerbrand 

message: Mark U. Edwards. Luther's Last Battles Ithaca, NY: Cornell Universiity Press, 1983.
"For racial Anti-Semitism religious belief is largely irrelevant...Scholars who point this out are not condoning religious anti-Semitism. They are only pointing out that the logic of religious anti-Semitism leads to attempts at conversion, not to genocide." (Edwards, 139)--CTSWyneken 21:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mark U. Edwards 

message: 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)--CTSWyneken 20:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard Marius 

message: Martin Marty. Martin Luther: A Penguin Life New York: Lipper/Viking Book, 2004.
"Fearing chaos as always, Luther did not urge Christian citizens to take matters into their own hands against their Jewish neighbors. Instead and in character, he called on civil authorities to banish Jews...While urging the people not to avenge themselves, he did want them to stir up their rulers and join in the calls for these leaders to burn synagogues along with the books of rabbis and even their homes, lest rabbis would change venues and find other places to teach blasphemy. If Jew would not respond to mercy by using the time given them to convert, he declared that Christians must drive them out like mad dogs lest they be damned alongside Jews."(Marty,172-173)--CTSWyneken 20:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Martin Marty 

message: Graham Noble. "Martin Luther and German Anti-Semitism." History Review (2002) no. 42:1-2.
No matter that [Luther] sought, in his own terms, to save the Jews not to exterminate them, that he had no notion of the pseudo-scientific eugenics which underpinned Nazi anti-Semitism, or that he depreciated physical violence against them -- Martin Luther offered in his writings a historical and intellectual justification for the Holocaust, which the Nazis took pains to exploit." (Noble, 2).--CTSWyneken 16:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graham Noble 

message: Elliot Rosenberg. But Were They Good For the Jews? Secaucus, NJ: Carol Publishing Group, 1997. He does not refer to the "slaying" text, but says this about the work:
Luther was clearly not a man who suffered rebuke. By the 1540s, Jews were "venomous and virulent," "thieves and brigands," and "disgusting vermin." His 1544 pamphlet "Concerning the Jews and Their Lies" set forth a comprehensive program for dealing with them: Set their synagogue on fire, and whatever does not burn up should be covered or spread over with dirt so that no man may ever be able to see a cinder or stone of it... Their homes should likewise be broken down and destroyed... They shall be put under one roof, or in a stable, like gypsies, in order that they may realize they are not masters in our land, as they boast, but miserable captives... They should be deprived if their prayer-books and Talmuds... Their Rabbis must be forbidden to teach under the threat of death." (Rosenberg, 66) --CTSWyneken 17:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elliot Rosenberg 

message: 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) --CTSWyneken 12:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gordon Rupp 

message: A reference to or quotation from this letter is certainly appropriate. The citation, however, should be to the printed edition of Luther's Works, and not the online version, which is likely infringing. In the morning, I will locate the letter in Luther's Works and restore the quotation from it. --CTSWyneken 02:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luther's Letter to Spalatin 

message: Dear Slim:
First, please forgive the tone of my posts. I have devoted quite a bit of my time to this and am a bit touchy with it.
Second, I have invited user Eloquence to take a look at the issue. He authored the WP:COPY that tells us not to link to infringing works. Is he acceptable? --CTSWyneken 22:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion Requested 

message: Could someone explain why an internal link to another article is being deleted? There's an insanity to what's going on here. Could people from now on please try to hash out their disagreements on talk before making changes? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Now an internal link is being deleted

message: SlimVirgin, thanks for your participation here.  First, it seems clear that if CTSWyneken objected to the Hasall link at Fordham University which is merely provided (though not required) for reference purposes, it in no way justifies his deletion of the quotation of Dr. Hasall's scholarly commentary (which should be included with or without the link).  
Second, regarding first the repeated deletion and then CTSWyneken's editing related to Michael's work titled, "“Luther, Luther Scholars and the Jews,” I would like to point out that CTSWyneken has merely injected his point of view into the summary provided by the scholars at The Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism.  Compare what the Sassoon scholar writes with what CTSWyneken writes.
The Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem write (note, I've already provided a link to this in theRobert Michael Summary section)
Luther scholars who defend, censor, or try to tone down his views on the Jews, ignore the murderous implications of Luther's antisemitism. Like the Nazis, Luther mythologized the Jews as completely evil: they should not be treated as humans and should be cast out of Germany. They could be saved if they converted to Christianity, but their demonic hostility to Christian society makes this inconceivable. "There was a strong parallel between Luther's ideas and feelings about Jews and Judaism and the essentially anti-Jewish Weltanschauung of most German Lutherans throughout the Holocaust."
Compare to CTSWyneken's redacted version:
Robert Michael argues that Luther scholars ignore the murderous implications of Luther's antisemitism. Michael believes that, like the Nazis, Luther mythologized the Jews as completely evil, They should not be treated as humans and should be cast out of Germany. They could be saved if they converted to Christianity, but their demonic hostility to Christian society makes this inconceivable. He believes that a strong parallel between Luther's ideas and feelings about Jews and Judaism and the essentially anti-Jewish Weltanschauung of most German Lutherans throughout the Holocaust.
Compare to my insertion here []
The first thing you may notice is that I introduce ZERO POV.  I do not add nor delete a single word. Second, you may notice CTSWyneken's redaction of  the criticism , Luther scholars who defend, censor, or try to tone down his views on the Jews, ignore the murderous implications of Luther's antisemitism.  He thereby introduces his OWN POV.  Me thinks the man doth protest too much.
Why should the scholar's words be redacted by CTSWyneken?  CTSWyneken has demonstrated a unique ability to claim superior knowlege of articles that he admits never even reading (see here[], so much more so now that he actually has a paper copy of an article that his knowledge is superior to mine and The Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism.
Doright 01:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Three points: 1. Why should an entire paragraph be quoted?  This is an encyclopedia; treat it as one.  If you wish to write a position paper on the matter, with extensive quotations, then do it!  The Wikipedia is not the be-all, end-all of information; it is a summary of the information known, giving a basic NPOV overview of the subject at hand, and then ought to direct the reader to sources, be they more specialized or far-ranging.  Summary is necessary.  Concision is a virtue.  Give both of these a try; you might like them.  2. there IS POV in the quotation you champion.  This does not exclude its inclusion --- the Wikipedia is certainly not about abolishing POV, but presenting issues in the most NPOV fashion possible --- but to present this quote as a simple, factual statement is ludicrous.  3. Still haven't read the article concerning appeals to authority, eh? -Rekleov 01:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of Hasall's Scholarly Opinion, also Redaction of Michael Article

message: I'd like to revisit the issue of the paragraph inserted by an editor that claimed to be from this article. 
Another user had reverted the addition of the paragraph. I decided to verify the selection, since, if it was accurate, it certainly would be acceptable in this article.
To verify the information in this selection, I had a photocopy made of the article from our library's holdings of the journal Encounter, following the citation included in the footnote to the selection. The first thing I noticed was that the pagination for the article was incorrect. The second thing I noticed was that the words in the selection were nowhere to be found in the article. 
I made the assumption that the user had read the article in question and had provided a summary of it. I read the article to see if it worked as a summary. With the exception of the characterization of Luther scholars, it did manage to represent some of Dr. Michael's arguments faithfully. Even though he has a strong opinion of the attempts to explain Luther's views, he remained a gentleman throughout and focused on what he thought of the arguments and the editions of Luther's polemical writings on the Jews. I edited the text, thinking it was the editor's text, so that it was clear that the statements remaining were the opinion of Dr. Michael and removed the characterization of the scholars.
The user now tells us that he got this text from another source, an institute at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. I was unable to locate the text he says he quoted from that site, due to the search engine not connecting to its server. I will try again tomorrow.
If the text is indeed where the user says it is, I will not object to his replacing the text I edited with the one he originally contributed, providing it is cited correctly to the person who wrote the paragraph and not to Dr. Michael, for these are not his words.
If, instead, we would prefer Dr. Michael's own words, I would be happy to extract them from the article. --CTSWyneken 03:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For Doright: As to your most recent post on Jan. 9:  Which scholars?  Those who tout one particular point of view, and not those who may disagree?  Why does one set trump the other?  This has yet to be explained.  Please help. -Rekleov 21:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rekleov, Scholars "out there" trump the POV of wikipedians "in here."  Rekleov, this is from your talk page, "... could you do me a favor and look in on the Talk page of Martin Luther and the Jews?"  "It is proving very difficult, since I'm the sole Lutheran voice here at the moment."  --CTSWyneken 02:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert Michael's "Luther, Luther Scholars, and the Jews" 

message: With things improving on this article and with some of the debate dying down here and on the Martin Luther Article, I'd like to restart this discussion and resolve it. Here is where we stand, as far as I can see in the former section above. Please let me know if I am mistaken, or if your view has changed.
I proposed the merge, Drboisclair seconded it and Aiden thought we should merge it as well.
Jayg and Doright believe that we should keep a separate article.
Jayg argued that many other books have articles and suggested that we look at the Mein Kampf Article. I asked if he had other suggestions and he replied with the Protocols of Zion article. 
Now, new discussion. I'm intrigued by these book articles and I think we could make a go of it, if we carefully distinguish between them. As it is now, there is no difference in coverage. If that has no prospect of being changed, I'm still for the merge. If we hope to develop it along the outline of other book articles, then I'd be content to keep it. --CTSWyneken 21:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One can't help wonder why the fantastic interest in killing the On the Jews and Their Lies article that internal links to it have been repeatedly deleted and every imaginable obstacle is put in the way of its development, that more time has been spent on deletions of material from it than actual contributions to it.  Here is just one example  Why don't you give the article a chance to be written before trying to kill it? Doright 22:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is only logical for these articles to be merged into one.  The subject is precisely the same; the article on OtJaTL could be made to fit in quite nicely into this article, and it would be one less article cluttering up the Wikipedia.  While it is likely that as the Wikipedia expands we will see more and more pages set aside for individual books, this book is best fitted into this article due to its intimate relation to the subject matter.  By the way, Doright, the example you link to was a fine example of POV material.  Nice try. -Rekleov 00:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  <cite>On the Jews and Their Lies</cite> Merge Suggestion 

message: (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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Formal Requests to Doright 

message: and to think the leftists want him to have his own holiday, what a joke--64.12.116.201 14:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  May I say, "Huh?" --CTSWyneken 16:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Our anonymous friend is confusing Martin Luther with Martin Luther King, either intentionally or unwittingly. The holiday is already a fait accompli. - Nunh-huh 21:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ha ha

message: This quote comes from an H-Net email discussion group H-Antis, now called H-Antisemitism. Normally, WP:CITE discourages quotations from such sources, since they are not juried or edited. D. G. Myers, is, however, a scholar and the list is a venerable one, with the organization supplying it predating the World Wide Web. 
The title of the email was in error, so I corrected it. I provided a link to table of contents page that leads to the message, the deepest practical place to link.
I also expanded the quote to include more of the context of Myer's words. --CTSWyneken 20:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verification Report on D. G. Myers Quote 

message: Hearing no drumbeat for or against the merger proposal, I'm removing the merger tag. Let's see if we can make a go of it. --CTSWyneken 01:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Merge Flag 

message: Thanks, Humus, for the help with this section. Your additions fill it out nicely. I'll see next week if I have a public domain translation of Luther's letter to him. If so, I'll add it to Project Wittenberg and we can either expand the section a bit with direct quotes or link to it in a footnote. --CTSWyneken 11:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, at least at first try, it appears that this letter has never been translated. I'll ask someone to do it and post it to Project Wittenberg. --CTSWyneken 03:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Josel of Rosheim