Talk:Martin Luther/Archive 2

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 [5]
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." [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)
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 [8]
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: 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)
thread_title:  Quote from [[WP:COPY]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Report of Conversation with Forham University 

message: Since I had not been able to find Dr. Halsall, I asked the American Theological Library Association list ATLANTIS for assistance in locating him. One of the librarians called the University of North Florida, where Dr. Halsall last taught. The librarian was told Dr. Halsall no longer works for an academic institution. I was given the email of another person associated with the Internet Medieval Sourcebook, who will check their files for a permission letter. I will report back when I learn more. --CTSWyneken 02:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Search for Paul Halsall 

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: Martin Brecht, in his magesterial three volume biography Martin Luther tr. James Schaaf. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993, 3:341-346, disagrees with Dr. Michael. 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." (p. 344)--CTSWyneken 11:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brecht on <cite>On the Jews</cite> and Murder All Jews 

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." p. 2. --CTSWyneken 23:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graham Noble on <cite>On the Jews</cite> and Murder All Jews 

message: Luther's anti-Jewish rhetoric and doctrines are often described as "anti-Semitic" or "anti-Judaism". Luther expected that a clear and direct presentation of the Christian gospel to the Jews would convert them, but when his efforts to persuade the Jews to accept Christ as the Messiah failed, he became embittered and recommended harsh persecution of the Jews within the German territories. Four centuries later, the Nazis, though their philosophical roots were primarily pagan, cited his pamphlet On the Jews and Their Lies (1543) to justify their attempts at genocide. Since the 1980s, numerous Lutheran church bodies and organizations have formally disassociated themselves from these writings and the views concerning Jews held therein.
:Find below my reasons for these proposed changes (at least some of them).  Reasons for the other, small changes should be obvious.  If not, I will be happy to give them.
:*abandon the faith of their fathers is clearly a POV statement, as Luther would certainly not have argued that that is what he was hoping they would do; quite the reverse, really, as he saw Jesus as the fulfillment of their faith. 
:*though their philosophical roots were primarily pagan: this is a point that must be made when Godwin's Law comes into play, especially in this context.  They wanted no part of Luther's theology, or of the theological underpinnings of his arguments vs. the Jews in Germany; rather, they only wanted the exterior anti-Jewish support.
:*begun a process, etc.: odd, odd wording.  Is there an official process for this to be done? -Rekleov 23:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for bringing your proposals here to be discussed. I am happy with the language as it was when we finished the collaborative edit, but have no problem with the adjustments, save one. Since we're supposed to be neutral, and not all people accept Jesus as the Christ, I would change the word "Christ" for the name "Jesus." Others may have concerns, though, so I'd like to hear them out. --CTSWyneken 01:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at it again, I think an even better way to balance the first statement would be to say --- content-wise, and not as a final statement --- "when his efforts to persuade the Jews to accept Jesus as the Messiah failed, efforts the Jewish population understood as a call for them to abandon the faith of their fathers".  Just a thought. -Rekleov 01:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Abandon the faith of their fathers" is clearly a NPOV way of describing it; he wanted them to abandon the faith of their fathers, and adopt Christianity.  He wasn't claiming that Christianity was the faith of their fathers, was he? As for "though their philosophical roots were primarily pagan", this is a brief summary, and contains enough apologetics for Luther already.  Finally, "numerous" is an exaggeration - as far as I can tell there are three. Jayjg (talk) 03:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: No, it is not NPOV --- that's why I suggested changing it in the first place.  From Luther's POV, they would not be abandoning "the faith of their fathers", but having that faith come to completion, as they would see that the messiah they were still looking for had already come.  Thus one side saw it as a call for abandonment, while the other saw it as a call for acceptance.  Declaring either of these as NPOV would, thus, be mistaken.  To establish NPOV in this case is to recognize that each side had a wildly differing view of the matter at question. -Rekleov 03:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, each side had a wildly different POV; perhaps Luther thought they would be "completed" (though in reality this is a 20th century concept), and the Jews thought they were being asked to idol-worship.  Nevertheless, Wikipedia cannot ignore reality; whatever Luther thought, the fact was he wanted them to convert from Judaism to Christianity, and that fact is perfectly NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 03:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed edits: Point well taken 

message: This certainly cannot be what wikipedia is about: ad hominem attacks of "sockpuppet for a banned editor?"  Of course no evidence accompanies this slander.  It is a shameful display. Please stick to the merits of the argument. First I'm labeled a Jew with a vendetta against Luther, now I'm labeled a sock puppet.  These bullying tactics are highly corrosive.Doright 08:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is for the discussion of material that should be in this article not to level charges. Exception should be taken to this blatant ad hominem attack. Please, stop it. drboisclair 09:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  StanZegel says "sockpuppet for a banned editor" 

message: I was concerned about a statement from someone above about editing as a Lutheran. I hope that we stick to Jimbo's philosophy that: "We don't act in Wikipedia as a Democrat, a Republican, a pro-Lifer, a pro-Choicer, or whatever. Here we are Wikipedians" and "For me, when I enter Wikipedia, I try to leave my personal politics at the door. I try to leave my personal opinions about religion, etc. at the door. Here, I am a Wikipedian. And this inspires in me a feeling of serious quiet thoughtful reflection ... Outside, I may be an advocate. But here, I am a Wikipedian." 
It means we stick to policy, use good sources, quote them when the point is a contentious one, write in an encyclopedic, educated tone, and don't introduce our own arguments or opinions. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is something wrong with the quote, say what is wrong with it. Do not simply revert. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please supply the quote. BTW, there are also no Catholics or Jews or Moslems or Hindus here either. drboisclair 09:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It's the quote you keep deleting. Because of your absurd reverting, I've not been able to continue improving the article, which is in need of it. Also, there is some problem with the references. In the Luther and the Jews section, none of the references seem to point anywhere, so I've used Harvard referencing to add the latest material. I'll be re-inserting that quote tomorrow. You have no right to keep on deleting properly referenced material without saying exactly what your objection is. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you get into the process of finding a consensus and leave 'your' soap box at the door of this website. drboisclair 09:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Say exactly what is wrong with the quote. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As Jayjg has pointed out there needs to be balance. There is a subarticle for these quotations. This is supposed to be a summary. Why don't we agree to revert this back to the paragraph that was agreed upon for over two months of negotiations, and put your quotations into the sub article? You are conducting yourself in an uncivil manner. drboisclair 09:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree there needs to be balance, but there is none in this article. The material on Luther and the Jews is left to the very end, one tiny paragraph, with the rest shunted off to a sub-article, and no proper summary of it here. That won't do. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect to you, whom I take to be a senior Wikipedian with a large edit count. Are you not aware of the fact that we have gone through this before? These quotations introduce a skew here. If they remain—I will not violate the 3 reversion rule—then, quotations from the opposing side will have to be put in here, making it longer still. All this despite the fact that we have a subarticle Martin Luther and the Jews. Why don't we put your new article here on the discussion page for discussion and put back what was agreed to. I appeal to your sense of fairness here. drboisclair 10:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No Lutherans here

message: SlimVirgin, you have not been a part of the process of editing this article, so please propose your emendation before putting it here. You are not checking your soap box at the door by putting it in here without proposing it. Please show some civility in not being the tool of the virtually anonymous. drboisclair 09:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop putting in what is in no encyclopedia 

message: Since persons are trying to insert their POV into this article. I think that the neutrality flag needs to be put up. This is absolutely outrageous that educated people cannot conduct themselves in a more civil manner. drboisclair 09:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps there aren't as many educated people here as you think. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we are all middle aged children at play, and rudely putting things in without consultation. drboisclair 09:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read our policies. You have no right to delete properly cited, relevant quotes. For the fourth time, please say exactly what is wrong with the quote, and kindly review WP:OWN. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ms. Slim Virgin, I have not reverted anything for the fourth time. You are unilaterally taking upon yourself the revision of this article, which has been the painstaking process of three to four months. It has been agreed by the editors, who have worked on this above that nothing would be added to this article without an OK. Yes, you are within your rights to put in quoted material. Why don't you put them into the subarticle? As far as I am concerned there is nothing wrong with the quotations. I am sure that you are accurate and within your rights, but I deplore your incivility. drboisclair 09:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say you had reverted four times; I said I had asked the same question four times, and you have at last answered it, confirming that there is nothing wrong with the quote. Thank you. I also deplore your incivility, so that's two points we agree on, which is progress at least. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I would like to think of myself as a gentleman, I apologize for any incivility. It is good that seasoned Wikipedians get into the process of making this online resource the prodigy that it is. Your help is appreciated, but perhaps you could work with us rather than against us. Respectfully, drboisclair 10:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apology accepted and thank you. I would very much prefer to work with you than against you. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The need for neutrality flag 

message: The red flag having been raised again I would like to urge its removal becaue we have worked this out. I would appeal for arbitration. It is sad that when one novice Wikipedian does not get his way, everything should be disrupted. drboisclair 14:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Antisemitism issue has been resolved 

message: Dear SlimVirgin, this is the modern German version of the paragraph in question taken from the St. Louis Edition of Luther's Works, Vol. 20, column 1989, no. 296: 
:Nicht anders ist's, denn wir droben gesagt aus Mose, daß sie GOtt mit Wahnsinn, Blindheit und rasendem Herzen geschlagen hat: so ist auch unser Schuld, daß wir das große unschuldige Blut, so sie an unserm HErrn und den Christen bei dreihundert Jahren nach Zerstörung Jerusalem, und bis daher an Kindern vergossen (welches noch aus ihren Augen und Haut scheint), nicht rächen, sie nicht todtschlagen, sondern für alle ihren Mord, Fluchen, Lästern, Lügen, Schänden frei bei uns sitzen lassen, ihre Schule, Häuser, Leib und Gut schützen und schirmen, damit wir sie faul und sicher machen und helfen, daß sie getrost unser Geld und Gut uns aussaugen, dazu unser spotten, uns anspeien, ob sie zuletzt könnten unser mächtig werden, und für solche große Sünde uns alle todtschlagen, alles Gut nehmen, wie sie täglich bitten und hoffen. Sage nun du, ob sie nicht große Ursach haben, uns verfluchten Gojim feind zu sein, uns zu fluchen, und unser endlich, gründlich ewig Verderben zu suchen?
That may be easier to parse and translate. With respect, drboisclair 16:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, DRB, that's very helpful. The English isn't a brilliant translation, in my view, in part because the German itself is unclear. We're to blame for not killing them. Well, clearly, if we don't kill X, we are responsible for not killing X, so he doesn't mean it in that trivial sense, but it's not clear to me exactly what he does mean. And "so ist auch unser Schuld" is not "so we are even at fault," which implies a degree of sarcasm or irony, which isn't obvious from the German. I wonder if there's a better translation somewhere. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you know German! As a student of Luther for 20 years, my graduate master's is in studing the theology of Luther, I find that what you have just pointed out is a problem we scholars have had with the English translations in the American Edition of Luther's works. We constantly find mistranslations and problems. That is what CTSWyneken means when he points out that scholars are unclear about what Luther meant. I think that all of us are clear about the 7 point program that makes me weep as a Christian. I can tell you that if I were alive then and they were doing that to Jewish people, I would stand beside them and take on myself the violence done to them, so out of keeping with the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, "Love your enemies, Love one another." The story of Corey Ten Boom shows how her father, a devout Christian, had the yellow star of David sown onto his own coat. While we Christians are not part of the Holocaust, we were also victims of diabolical Nazi torture and evil. I pray that we may never forget what Hitler did. drboisclair 17:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Modern German of the passage 

message: The article has once again been reverted without a resolution of the dispute. I again call for arbitration. The User:Doright is advancing his POV through the Luther quotation taken out of context. In the House of Representatives one would move that the gentleman's words be taken down. drboisclair 20:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The state of things in this article and two others is an edit war, which may warrant further scrutiny. drboisclair 22:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may. But it's nowhere near the state that requires arbitration (or that ArbCom would accept). --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Second Call for Arbitration 

message: SlimVirgin, Admittedly, translation inherently includes some degree of interpretation.  There are two points that come to mind.  However, no scholar denies that he wrote it. That's why I stick to  "he wrote". One, what did the original scholar of the English language translation understand it to mean?  And, two, isn't it obvious what it means taken in the context of the surrounding language of the document?  
On the first point, the translator understood these to be, and I use his word, "proposals."  He writes in the footnotes: "Most of Luther's proposals are paralleled in the other anti-Jewish literature of the period, but the specific formulation which follows may be attributed to him."
On the second point, I often say, when all else fails, maybe I should read the text. Here is the relevant section of On the Jews and Their Lies. In an effort to maintain balance and still reflect the views of particular Lutheran scholars, I wonder if an article on Luther Denial modeled after [] might be salutary. Doright 23:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Watch the quotable limit for copyright, eh?  -Rekleov 23:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Depends what the meaning of "Is" is, Call for Separate Luther Denial article 

message: Gathering scholarly quotations at: Talk:Martin_Luther_and_the_Jews#Did_Luther_recommend_the_killing_of_the_Jews
Please help build this section. --CTSWyneken 14:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To preempt, yet another another straw-man argument, let's remember the disputed language is "he became embittered and wrote that Christians are at fault for not slaying Jews.  Paradoxically, and imho ironically, it is CTSWyneken himself who repeatedly uses the language Luther "recommended"  So CTS, if you don't like the word slay, what did Luther say IN HIS OWN WORDS?Doright 21:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr. Doright, do you see what you do to others? "yet another straw-man argument". Everyone other than you has a weak and duplicitous view. Only you are right. Why don't you at least consider the opinion of others as at least equal with yours? Have you studied Luther's writings? How much of his works have you read? Have you read scholars that have the opposing view of your internet web discussion forum? Yes, in his own words, but in his own words in context. You take them out of context and give them a new spin to support your POV and that of Dr. Robert Michael. drboisclair 22:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Luther recommend the killing of the Jews? 

message: There are four issues that are being conflated repeatedly in the arguments of a certain self-defined group [](hereinafter referred to as ‘’’ “The SDG” ’’’) of wikipedians on this and the other Luther related pages.
The four conflated issues are:
*(1) What words did Luther actually write? 
*(2) What do those words actually mean? 
*(3) Did Luther mean what he wrote?  
*(4) Did Luther intend for his writings to be actually put into action? 
The currently SDG controlled article says:
 “… he became embittered and recommended harsh persecution of the Jews.”
Here is a list in chronological order and increasingly accommodating attempts to satisfy  The SDG POV.  All have been rejected by the SDG without much of an explanation except that they seem to behave like they own the Luther related pages.  
*(1st try):  “… he became embittered and recommended the Jews be murdered. ” []
*(2nd try):  “… he became embittered and recommended killing the Jews.” []
*(3rd try):  “… he became embittered and recommended slaying the Jews.”  []
*(4th try): “… he became embittered and wrote that Christians are at fault for not slaying Jews.”
#  Martin Luther, On the Jews and Their Lies, Trans. Martin H. Bertram, in Luther's Works Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971. "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." []
Please note that in this last try, “he … recommended” is replaced with “ he … wrote” followed by a direct quote.
After THE SDG refused to provide a meaningful reply in talk other than the implication that they own the page SlimVirgin had to temporarily accede to their reverts when she hit her 3RR threshold. SlimVirgin says, “have expanded and tidied writing; so as not to violate 3RR, I have had to leave out the slaying quote but I will restore it asap) []
‘’’The SDG has repeatedly demonstrated their agreement that Luther “recommended” something.  This is shown by their continued reversion to their phrase  “recommended harsh persecution.”  One asks, Did Luther specify exactly what these "harsh persecutions" are? And, if so, why use a euphemism like "harsh persecution" instead of Luther's own words? ‘’’
Finally, if The SDG wants to revise or deny what Luther wrote and cite MORE THAN a vastly limited minority of Luther Revisers and Deniers as authorities, I have no problem with that.  But, do not censor Luther’s own words.  Indeed, if The SDG can show that their POV is a viewpoint held by a significant minority with prominent adherents then the Luther Denial viewpoint may warrant greater weight, for example, please see here for one example of how such viewpoints has been handled in other wikipedia articles.[[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Revisionists_and_deniers]]
However, IMHO, in no case should anyone’s opinion about what Luther said or meant be given more weight than Luther’s own words. Collegially,Doright 21:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Four Conflated Issues of the SDG 

message: With respect, Mr. Doright, Luther must be known from his own words in context. This is what SlimVirgin, CTSWyneken, and I have done with Dr. Michael's quotation of Luther--via you--in the appropriate article Martin Luther and the Jews. SlimVirgin requested the original text, which I provided via the Weimarer Ausgabe and the second edition of Walch. SlimVirgin noticed that there was an ambiguity of meaning. You want to press Dr. Michael's POV of Luther advocating mass killing of the Jews. He is a doctor and a scholar, and he has studied Luther. I agree with you that we must hear his POV, but we must not present his POV as the only valid position. When one cuts this phrase out of this passage and frames it with connecting words as you have done and places it in the introduction that merely presents Dr. Michael's and your POV about what Luther said. Let's take another example that StanZegel cited to me two or three months ago: "the devil is the god of the world." This is found on page 137 of vol. 47 of Luther's Works. If this were cut and pasted into an article about Luther, one would get the impression that Luther believed that the devil is god. 
The bottom line is you can get Luther to say whatever you want him to say. Have you ever seen Primary Colors? That was about a campaign for President of the United States. The operatives of one candidate used the recorded words of the other to make him say whatever they wanted him to say. 
What we have in this quotation from Luther is an evil sentiment that Christians and Jews should have had it out in the past: the Jews should have been killed. This is a heinous sin in the Christian religion, the sentiment that is. However, objectively it is not part of Luther's proposed pogrom. To say that this phrase in question, cut out of context, is the "final solution" is not to accurately present what Luther was saying here. By pushing for its inclusion as it was being pushed by you, is tantamount to pushing your POV. Respectfully submitted for your consideration. drboisclair 22:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luther in his own words 

message: Is Wikipedia a Christian Publication? Dear colleague, with respect, may I point out that whether "harsh persecution" is or is not a euphemism for a Christian seems irrelevant according to wikipedia guidelines?  We are writing for a general audience, not merely Christian Seminarians.  Therefore, when attempting to understand how a literate reader will understand the language of this wikipedia article, I suggest we look to a dictionary of the English language and not Greek of 2,000 years ago.  Indeed, this is reminiscent of the claim that antisemitism implied discrimination against Arabs.  I implore wikipedians to pick up a dictionary.
Looking up the definition of "persecute" in my Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the 1st entry is "to harass," the 2nd entry is "to annoy." Now, if you would, take the following material (all directly from Luther) and tell me which fall into the "harass" meaning, which fall into the "annoy" meaning and which don't quite fall into either. 
 eject them forever from the country, set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. I advise that their houses  destroyed. books and writings taken from them. safe-conduct abolished completely for the Jews.all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them, slaying, 
At a minimum, these word, that Luther wrote, undeniably fits either the definition of ‘’’ "ethnic cleansing" ‘’’ (i.e., the expulsion, imprisonment, or killing of ethnic minorities by a dominant majority group) or  ‘’’genocide’’’ (the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group) or both.  As now shown, “harsh persecution” is a euphemistic whitewash for ethnic cleansing or genocide for readers of standard English.  Collegially,Doright 04:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Undeniably" would not be the right word. That quote, taken out of context, can be made to sound like Nazi rhetoric, but many people claim that the Nazis misunderstood Luther's words. Ethnic cleansing and genocide both involve killing people. Even taken out of context, that quote says nothing about killing people. --لæmäļ al diη  04:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jamal al din, welcome to the discussion. May I suggest we concentrate on the text offered to improve the article, not on an adjective that an editor used in his comment. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 05:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, Humus, I think we should move on. Later in the AM, unless something at work commands my attention, I'll start yet another new section on the text itself. I will start from SlimVirgin's text and add a quotation from a Luther scholar that disagrees with him. I'll ask the same question I asked of Jayg... is there anything else you'd like to see in it? While I would like this section short for reasons you know already, I'm getting tired of having to repeat all of the arguments every few weeks. --CTSWyneken 12:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  Jamal, indeed, a pleasure to meet you.  You make several interesting points.  Funny you should mention that about the Nazis, since the Nazis actually did cite Luther's writings in Nazi rhetoric and this very text was cited by them at the Nuremberg Nazi trials.  And, scholars have pointed out that, in context, "No one can rationally deny the parallels between Luther's program for the Jews and Hitler's. Many have denied that Luther advocated death for Jews. These people have not read "The Jews and Their Lies." Check it out on the jews and their lies  or read here in talk above where I provided several pages of the actual text.  Reagrding ethnic cleansing and genocide, I would make at least two points.  (1) Killing is only one of the many ways of Ethnic Cleansing.  If you don't have a dictionary handy, try this one. []. It says, the expulsion, imprisonment, OR killing. (2) What do you think would happen to a people (remember public services are a bit sparse in that century) that had their home destroyed, all their institutions destroyed, property taken, all objects of their culture destroyed, attacks permitted against them on the roads, etc, etc?  What do you think your life expectancy would be with no shelter, no money ... nothing? Do you think some people might die from exposure? Hunger? Be killed trying to defend themselves? Again, welcome to the conversation.Doright 06:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persecution is not a Euphemism for Ethnic Cleansing or Genocide for Christians 

message: In the light of the above, I want it to be known that my comments do not have behind them the idea that I think that Wikipedia is Christian. I speak here not as a Christian but as a scholar. I am dedicated to Wikipedia's NPOV. I must also point out to anyone that might push POV that Wikipedia is not Republican, Democrat, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, or Buddhist, e.g. There are times when I get the impression that that is thought by some. I do not. When I said that persecution was not a euphemism I meant to point out the enormity of such a charge to a Christian. Christians too have been the victims of persecution. Christians too were the victims of Hitler while they were not part of the Holocaust. I would counsel against any editor sitting in judgment of another editor.
As to euphemisms, any word is euphemistic for concepts like genocide or racial cleansing, or pogrom. Whatever we say is euphemistic. drboisclair 16:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Always affirming no denominational affiliation 

message: CTSW, you've put up the neutrality tag, and yet the only change was that I inserted the section you and others agreed to. Is there a further problem? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dear Slim, the problem is that the Luther scholar quote is not yet in the text. I would have preferred to leave the previously negotiated text online until this one was complete. Nevertheless, I do not want to impede progress towards a resolution of the issue, so I put the flag on it rather than revert it. --CTSWyneken 11:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Jamal, what on Earth is semitism?Doright 06:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not the editors here who are trying to paint Luther as anti-Semitic; rather, it is a large number of historians.  What makes Paul Johnson a "rogue historian", and where did you get your novel thesis that all Luther was doing was responding to Jewish usury? Jayjg (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jayjg, it is primarily one disruptive editor here trying to push the view that not only was Luther anti-semitic, but that he was the inspiration for the genocides of WWII! Jamal al din raises valid points. The "large number of historians" has not been demonstrated to include a significant segment of scholars of Luther, and words are being twisted through incorrect quotations to pretend support for a POV. The fact that Luther was responding to an anti-Christian pamphlet of Jewish origin, and that usury was indeed an issue in those times, seems to be getting buried here in an attempt to push a POV. It seems there are more folks pushing POV in here than have actually read the works in question, and I am prepared to defer to those who know what they are talking about instead of those with an emotional obsession. I think you have been trying to keep things on track in that area, and I thank you for it. --StanZegel   (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't think that it is disputed that the Nazis used Luther's work in their propaganda; whether they were truly inspired by it is a different (and debated) question.  As for historians, scholars of Luther tend to come from a certain "demographic" (i.e. generally members of Lutheran bodies), and so have their own biases.  Unsurprisingly, non-Lutheran historians tend to reach different conclusions from them.  Regardless, Jamal al din's re-write of the section seems to me to be as one-sided as anything I've seen yet, and, even worse, appears to be entirely premised on original research.  And thank you for your kind words. Jayjg (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  I'll not get into the demographic game on Luther scholars, except to say that two of the ones we we have been quoting on this and other articles are not. Rupp is (was) an Anglican and I believe that Bainton was from the Church of the Brethren. Scholars on all sides have their biases and that is very understandable. Most freely admit them. Other than that, I agree with Jayg. The Nazis did use Luther's words to justify their actions. This is why Lutheran church bodies have been going on record condemning this work and the violent rhetoric he used at other times. There is also general agreement that Luther's words were vile and hate-filled. There is substantial disagreement among scholars as to whether to call this anti-semitism or anti-judaism, including some Luther scholars calling it anti-semitic (though most do not) and some non-Lutheran scholars calling it anti-judaic. Some scholars like Johnson, who specialises in the history of England, and Robert Michael, a scholar of anti-semitism suggest Luther is the intellectual ancestor of Hitler, others, like Rupp, disagree.  Once we've agreed if the Rupp quote is acceptable to represent the latter view, I'll be content to remove the NPOV flag. --CTSWyneken 23:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, they're not all Lutherans, but in many ways they are all his heirs, being members of Protestant churches. Jayjg (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  Wait one sec! A quotation from "On the Jews..." That I do not agree with has been added in a footnote to "harsh persecution"! Since the meaning of this quotation is very much in dispute, I will not remove the NPOV flag unless it goes, too. --CTSWyneken 23:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality tag

message: Dear Friends:
I've suggested on Talk:Martin Luther and the Jews that we reopen the discussion of merging the On the Jews and Their Lies into the Martin Luther and the Jews article. Please drop by and express your opinion. --CTSWyneken 21:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  <cite>On the Jews and Their Lies</cite> Merge Suggestion Discussion Restarted 

message: I've inserted the quote in the Martin Luther and the Jews section and removed the NPOV flag. --CTSWyneken 16:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote Inserted, NPOV Flag Removed 

message: The section "Eucharistic views and controversies" needs some help.  Right now it's one very long paragraph, full of detail about many, many other groups.  Can it be restructure as an overview that summarizes Luther's position, then some additional paragraphs maybe broken out chronologically or by group?  Does anyone want to take a shot at revising this? Johnh 18:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Johnh, or anyone else for the matter, please feel free to break the paragraph up, reword, modernize the language and remove detail. It's cut and pasted from a public domain source just to provide a baseline. We intended to get to that, before the long discussion on the Martin Luther and the Jews began. --CTSWyneken 18:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a quick rewrite of this section to get the ball rolling.--Jbull 19:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks good. Keep up the good work. --CTSWyneken 22:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eucharistic views and controversies section 

message: This is not a duplicate category. And it has not already been debated. The only related debate has been on the failed POV claim of another antisemtism category.  A key difference is that this category is not a list of Anti-Semitic people.  It is a list of people whose works have been influential in the history of Antisemitism even if that was not their intention.  It allows the WP user to quickly identify and link to the history of the ideas and people related to Antisemitism. For example, Martin Luther is one of the most widely cited theologians among Nazis to justify their anti-Semitism.  Luther was even cited as a defense by Nazis at the Nuremberg trials.  Therefore, Luther is important in the history of Antisemitism.  This category allows the WP user to track the relationships among the history of ideas and people related to anti-Semitism.  Those that claim this is a duplicate category are merely making a straw man arguement to push their own POV.Doright 19:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category Antisemitism (People)