Talk:On the Jews and Their Lies/Archive 1

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

message: (Copied from Talk:Martin Luther and the Jews)
This entire section was copied, edited and unsigned by CTSWyneken on Dec 22, 2005 
PLEASE SEE 
Stop Trying to hide the truth
CTSWyneken Stop Deleting Links to Fordham University and other Scholarly Sources that are in the Public Domain for unedited version that includes REFUTATION of CTSWyneken's Original Research and attempts to limit Wiki users online access to documents published by respected Universities. Doright 22:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
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: 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: Research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. --CTSWyneken 00:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote from [[WP:OR]] 

message: Proper, full source citations are badly needed here. The language makes unsupported claims and where it does quote authors and scholars, does not give the full publication's info: Author, Title, Place, Publisher, date and pages. In addition, external links to copyright infringing works should not be used. (see quote above from WP:COPY --CTSWyneken 11:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. If this article is to stay (of which I am not convinced yet), it needs to describe/discuss the book in an encyclopedic manner - of course this doesn't mean to praise it. It is possible to have good quality NPOV articles on controversial books and WP does have them. For me, boldfonts and harsh language only make the text less convincing. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

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

text: By the way, this is similar to the intellectual dishonesty and misrepresentation exposed here. .Doright 18:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you need to be with Wikipedia longer for you to level judgments and accusations. drboisclair 20:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Drboisclair, as already documented by the excuses you provided here[] that you still have not even looked at the evidence. Perhaps it would be proper for you to "vacate" your comments here as well as you did on your talk page that was then immediately archived?Doright 19:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Concerns 

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

message: The "Their" in the title should be capitalized.  Badagnani 21:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please note Humus also holds a similar view. Perhaps it would be best to list reasons why, since the Martin Luther and the Jews article contains more information about this text than this article that it is necessary to have it. --CTSWyneken 19:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: The first two sentences have completely subjective, uncited and unverifiable claims. A citation from a scholar is needed or they should be deleted. --CTSWyneken 19:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Having removed the POV rhetoric we may then remove the flags, although rework is constantly appreciated. drboisclair 21:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: There is still POV, uncited rhetoric in the first paragraph. I'll take a look at it in a week or so. --CTSWyneken 12:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes the tone of sentences can convey POV as you might have gathered. The goal is to be as objectively NPOV as possible. drboisclair 19:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research 

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

message: Shouldn't this article be moved to "The Jews and Their Lies" since the book is entitled "The Jews and Their Lies"? __earth 13:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Forget it. =) __earth 13:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the better translation of the title is "About the Jews and Their Lies" --StanZegel   (talk) 14:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to "The Jews and Their Lies" 

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

message: Fellow editors:
I've put all the current information on the copyright of Martin's Luther's On the Jews and Their Lies into the copyright topic page. For future reference, I'll put anything new I discover there and will answer questions about the status of this and other works at that location. --CTSWyneken 16:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, the advantages of virtual anonymity!drboisclair 23:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright of Martin Luther's Works Topic Updated 

message: This is your POV as a wikipedian. As a wikipedian, your POV has no place in deleting wikipedia content or links.  The scholars responsible for the content of this widely cited and respected web resource at this world renown university  clearly do not agree with your POV. They say, "This text is part of the Internet Medieval Source Book. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts related to medieval and Byzantine history." [] You have already stated that you had previously contacted them and shared your opinion with them.  And, they have not complied with your demands.  Nor should we. Who died and made you king?  It is improper for you to block access to this important historical document made available online by respected scholars at Fordham University. Please respect the opinion of scholars that do not agree with you.  Furthermore, the publisher is fully capable of directly contacting Fordham University or us if he agrees with your opinion.  Respectfully, please stop censoring.Doright 23:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, the advantages of virtual anonymity!drboisclair 23:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who Died and made you King, Please Stop deleting links to other Scholars 

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

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

message: Firstly, I think Luther was an amazing man but cannot condone his anti-Semitism. However, the reason that this article is not NPOV is because it starts with the debate and does not discuss the contents of the writing! What exactly did he write? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  One of the reasons for the proposed merger. There is some helpful discussion of the merger proposal at Talk:Martin Luther and the Jews. Be sure to use the table of contents to get to the section. There is a ... vigorous ... discussion on that talk page. This is one of the reasons why this article has received so little attention lately. --CTSWyneken 11:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ta bu shi da yu, Welcome to the discussion and thank you for your cogent observation. As you can see here [], it only took the censors a couple hours until they deleted my response to your comment by providing scholarly excerpts of "exactly" what he wrote.  Those excerpts were made by the referenced scholar at Fordham University[].  However, there is  repeated censorship by a certain Self Defined Group[] of wikipedians attempting to impose their orthodox doctrine to maintain the "purity of Luther's essence." I would like to encourage your participation. As you can see above they are even trying to delete the article by their proposed merge (which has been rejected by every senior wikipedian that has looked at the request).  Regards,Doright 16:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ta bu shi da yu, you hit the nail on the head about the article not discussing the content. Because of WP:COPY links to the two web pages in question are opposed. One could find the English translation of the document in Luther's Works vol. 47. I would think that any large library would have them. But to the point: since the material there is about twentieth century reaction to the book it needs to be properly captioned. This is a work in progress. drboisclair 17:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please notice here how consistent logic is not important for censorship, only enforcement of dogma.  Note, that just a day ago drboisclair argues on the article history page, "The exerpt in the Medieval Source Book Are sufficient," to support his deletion of links to the full text of the book here[]. Then today, when the very same excerpts are included in this article (by permission of the excerptor for educational uses) he supports the censorship of the excerpts by StanZegel.  Ta bu shi da yu, your contribution to the article will be greatly appreciated.  Please feel free to edit the article.  Regards,Doright 18:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The reason this is POV 

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

message: :Speaking as an outside viewer of this controversy, I have to say that the aggressive tone and language being used is less-than-inspiring: "See Talk (who died and made you king?))", "Again, you boys can't have it both way.", "{...} admits bad faith censorship", etc. It's not productive and such phrases are never 'true'... the purpose of Wikipedia is to 'be bold', not 'be rude'.
:Just a brief scan of the history for this article reveals a lot of vitriol, expounded upon with seeming glee on the talk page. For the benefit of the community, can you folks (all the folks on all sides of the debate) PLEASE make an extra effort to try to reduce the intentional confrontation and attacks? This is an encyclopedia, not a faith or anti-semitism encounter group. Thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for weighing in.  Looking forward to your assistance.Doright 21:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't respond to my request. Will you make an effort to help elevate the dialogue? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please reduce the vitriol

message: The vast swath of excerpts is making the article utterly unreadable. An inclusion of such a tract of content seems to be disrupting the article to prove a point (a no-no). The version before the re-introduction of the long scroll of excerpts seemed quite readable to me. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Welcome! I appreciate your assistance with this topic. Somewhere in the mess on the Martin Luther or the Martin Luther and the Jews page is a suggestion by Jayg that we pattern this article after other book articles in the wikipedia. Does that sound reasonable to you? If so, would you propose an outline? Also, I concur on the excerpts. I think some quotes from the book are useful, but not at the length they are now. I would be willing to have you suggest what should stay. --CTSWyneken 21:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't wanna just opine outta the blue, so I'll give the issues you raise some thought - re the excerpts: I can't see how 2 excerpts or so and a link to an online source for the rest wouldn't suffice to demonstrate, in Luther's own words, the nature of the content and controversy surrounding this book. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another editor recently applied the NPOV flag and opined that the article should start with "exactly" what the author wrote.  That made sense to me ... let the work speak for itself.  Since, it had already been agreed that the Fordham excerpts are acceptable, I included it all so as not to introduce my own POV by "cherry picking," with the expectation that it may be reduced for readability. BTW, there is a long history on this article, its "parent" article and its grandparent article before I showed up where the selection of quotations from this books were  quite contentious.  Also, I do believe that this is the place to provide the maximum detail and most excerpts from the book, since it is already addressed in much less detail here martin luther and then with a bit more detail here martin luther and anti-semitismSo, I hope that the starting point provided by this independent third party at Fordham will be a fruitful starting point. Collegially,Doright 23:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Excerpts

message: The opening of every article is supposed to contain a single paragraph including the title of the article in boldface stating as briefly and concisely and neutrally as possible what the article in about. -- Cecropia 01:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Cecropia: I'm pressed for time at the moment, but wanted to stop and thank you for a nice job on this article. We are not done by far, but it is a very good start. --CTSWyneken 03:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the kind words. I hope you'll find my further contributions useful. -- Cecropia 05:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia style and the opening para 

message: I appreciate Doright attempting to rectify the problem that this article doesn't state what Luther actually wrote by adding in information about the tract. However, I was more thinking that we could summarise the material, in much the same way that I have attempted to for different article: USA PATRIOT Act, Title II. One of the problems with including the quotes is that the site it is taken from has the following copyright:
:Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No permission is granted for commercial use.
This precludes the use of the translation in Wikipedia, regrettably. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ta bu shi da yu, thanks for the clarification. However, Isn't wikipedia "non-commericial" and the purpose of the encyclopedia "educational" and therefore persmission is  granted for electronic copying per your citation above?Doright 19:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of my previous comment 

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

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

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

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

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

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: Hearing no drumbeat for against merging the article, I am removing the merge flag. Let's see if we can make a go of this article. --CTSWyneken 01:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with this action, and would urge continued work on cleaning up this article to conform to WP:NPOV. It is a work in progress. drboisclair 20:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Merge Flag 

message: I think this aspect of the topic is best left to the Martin Luther and the Jews article. Here we should follow the model of the Mein Kampf article, which, as Jayg suggested, really is well laid out and neutral in tone, remarkable in that most people think of it as one of the most evil works ever written. The background really should focus on the immediate reasons why Luther wrote this work. So, anything we say here on that topic should be short and to the point. --CTSWyneken 02:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution of Luther's Views 

message: Please see discussion on the Martin Luther page. --CTSWyneken 19:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catagory Anti-Semitic People 

message: Dear Friends: Are there any objections to removing the neutrality flag here? While the article needs quite a bit of work, I think the balance is fairly close on the NPOV issues. --CTSWyneken 10:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that it is all right now to remove the neutrality flag provided that cooler heads prevail in the ongoing working out of this article. I would urge editors to be vigilant against the intrusion of POV from any quarter. I pledge myself to NPOV and fairness. drboisclair 18:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality Flag 

message: I moved this page to "On the Jews and Their Lies" because it's a stylistic standard to use the simplest title allowable. I can see why people decided to make it clear this was not simply a page preaching anti-Semitism, but I think:
:a) the capitalization of the title alone makes it clear it's a proper name
:b) the article makes it fairly clear from the start what it is about
:c) there is generally insufficient grounds to make an exception to standards for this article
Thoughts? Sarge Baldy 04:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on the all points. I performed the same move and was reverted (as I suppose Sarge Baldy also must have been). Perhaps a link to the lenghty discussion on the topic that I have been told was held before, should be posted here. // Habj 13:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That may be wise. A summary: it was feared that people would confuse the title of Luther's work with the content of the article. In other words, that people would think wikipedia was saying the Jews lie. Obviously, that is not the impression we wish to give. --CTSWyneken 02:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: The antecedant of this relative clause should be "quotations" rather than "pamphlet" in order to produce good English style:
:Four centuries later, the Nazis used quotations from this pamphlet, which was cited by the publisher of the Nazi newspaper Der Stürmer during the Nuremberg trials, [1] to justify the Final Solution.
It is not good style for a relative clause to refer to an object of a preposition. It could refer to either antecedant, though. Better would have been "which was mentioned ..." drboisclair 03:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A matter of style 

message: Dear Slim: This is the first I've seen of this edition. Do you have the publication details? It may well be a new translation that could be posted on the internet. While I do not like this work at all, it would be good to present the full record of Luther's career to add it. If all this works out, it would finally give us a non-infringing online text. --CTSWyneken 11:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you follow the link on the image page, you'll see it. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! I've sent for it interlibrary loan. The library record is of little help -- no indication as to the translator. --CTSWyneken 14:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2004 ed. of On the Jews... 

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

message: As a Luther scholar I object to the quotations in the opening paragraph. They are irrelevant to the document in question. They characterize it, they present the reaction to the document in the 20th Century, but they do not define or describe it in its milieu. The changes impose upon it the misuse of it by the Nazis to the point that it calls Martin Luther a Nazi. I feel that I am at a loss to revert as that will be used against me. I am offended at this biased travesty and anti-Lutheran propaganda. drboisclair 12:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've stumbled upon this and am confused.  Maybe a comment by a complete outsider will be helpful.  Maybe not.  This page is about a work of Martin Luther's, right?  It is not about the modern Lutheran religion, which I would assume has evolved in the past 500 or so years since the book was written.  If the nazis seized upon this work and used it for their ends, as the cite from Johnson says they did and the other cite says no evidence can be found to say that they did or they didn't, it is relevant to the historical importance and impact of the work in question.  To describe the connection as scholars have seen it does not say anything about the modern lutheran religion is not anti-Lutheran propaganda. 
elizmr 18:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you'd like a little more information on this, see Martin Luther and the Jews. In short, scholarship is divided on the significance of this work. All agree that it is a vile book that should never have been written. beyond that, opinions diverge. Some historians, mostly those with expertise in anti-semitism, see a direct connection between this book and the Holocaust. Others believe the book to have been of little or no influence at all and that the Nazis used it to their own ends -- as they did other figures seen as heroes of the German Nation. Unfortunately, Luther's work made what all consider an all too good a tool in the hands of the Nazis. --CTSWyneken 18:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The material put into the introduction is irrelevant to the work in question 

message: What do Bainton and Rappaport say exactly to support this sentence: "The treatise is regarded by scholars of anti-Semitism as anti-Semitic, but by many scholars of Luther as anti-Judaic rather than anti-Semitic." SlimVirgin (talk) 13:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone that reads the quotations would see that they as scholars and historians dispute the attribution of antisemitism to Luther. Removing these quotations would make this article biased. drboisclair 13:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My question was: what do they actually say to support, in R's case: "The treatise is regarded by scholars of anti-Semitism as anti-Semitic" (as opposed to historians in general); and in Bainton's case: "many scholars of Luther [regard it] as anti-Judaic rather than anti-Semitic". Does Bainton actually say that "many" scholars of Luther so regard it? SlimVirgin (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it should be changed to simply "scholars of Luther". drboisclair 13:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  See actual quotations at Martin Luther and the Jews. --CTSWyneken 14:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see a quote from Bainton, but it doesn't say anything about "many scholars of Luther" regard it as anti-Judaic rather than anti-Semitic. Could you supply a cite for that, please, or remove it? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Certainly. See below for a start. --CTSWyneken 19:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, could you supply an actual citation for "many Lutheran scholars" i.e. produce a scholar who agrees with your edit. See WP:V. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  By the way, this is not my edit. It is accurate, however. Read these quotes. They actually do agree with the contention that Luther was anti-Judaic and not anti-semitic. These demonstrate the contention that mentioned. More are coming. --CTSWyneken 20:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You still haven't understood. If the text says "many Lutheran scholars believe X," and that text is challenged (as I am doing now), you must supply a source that actually says "many Lutheran scholars believe X" (or very close to that), or else the edit is unsourced and may be removed. There's no point in posting 20 scholars saying it, because who's to say that's "many"? There could be another 500 saying the opposite. Therefore, you must find a scholarly, or otherwise reliable, source who says exactly what the edit says. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: What about an exact quote to the effect: "The treatise is regarded by scholars of anti-Semitism as anti-Semitic"? If we do not have that in so many words by some authoritative source, then that sentence should be eliminated.Drboisclair 21:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The entire sentence is silly, unsourced, and false, because it's not only "scholars of anti-Semitism" (whatever that means) who say he's anti-Semitic. See the end of this page for my suggestion about avoiding weasel words, as the policies say we should. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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)
Gordon Rupp Martin Luther: Hitler's Cause -- or Cure? London: Lutterworth Press, 1945
"But, as the reader will remember, the fighting of a civil war does not equal beheading of Anabaptists, nor does that equal the exile of Jews, which Luther demanded. Where is the evidence that Luther demanded a pogrom or wholesale executions?" (Rupp, 76)
"Luther was not recommending personal violence." (Rupp, 78-79).
"It all falls very far short of the Nazi anti-semitism with its doctrine of Race, with its mass extermination." (Rupp, 79)
These are the quickest. Over the next week, I will look up others. --CTSWyneken 19:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scholar's Characterizations of Luther 

message: Questions for CTSWyneken.  Again I'm asking you about Michael's arguments, NOT THE SPECIFIC WORDS he uses to convey his ideas.Doright 05:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  For those who see this, you should know that I ignore the contributions of user Doright, unless others interact with him. He has, in the past, engaged in constant personal attacks and has shown no sign of changing that behavior. This is the only way I know of to keep from going down the road towards filing an RfC, which I'm not inclined to do, since he occaisonly makes good contributions. He shows no interest in properly documenting his quotations, which has occupied too many of my hours and too much of our time to verify and correct. In fact, we are still doing this. This is the last I will say on this matter. --CTSWyneken 11:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You vandalized this article by almost blanking it, and then slapped it into another article without rewriting or checking for repetition. You also violated 3RR, so you might want to take the opportunity to revert yourself while you still can. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Slim, this is a new user. Perhaps he is unware of the way things work around here. Why not explain, rather than threaten. --CTSWyneken 13:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lutherans who defend, censor, or try to tone down Luther's  views 

message: How is this for the opening sentence here: "There is disagreement among scholars whether the treatise is anti-Semitic[9] or anti-Judaic.[10]" or should it be: "There is disagreement among scholars as to whether the treatise is anti-Semitic or anti-Judaic." 
:Two initial suggestions.Drboisclair 21:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This would be fine by me. --CTSWyneken 03:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for the sentence in question 

message: I've converted to the ref footnote system. I haven't checked that everything is 100 per cent and I have to stop editing soon, but I'll do more tomorrow. So if you find anything weird looking, don't panic. Some of the citations did seem a little repetitive, but that may be because I didn't add them to the right place. However, once it's fixed up, they should be easier to use. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, Slim. Having done this work on other pages, I know what a pain it is. When you're done, I'll give it a look for citation form. --CTSWyneken 11:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, once I'd finished, I discovered there's a tool that does it automatically: User:Cyde/Ref converter. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

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

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

message: Not the same as modern anti-Semitism
Richard Marius Martin Luther: The Christian Between God and Death. 380. "But the fact that Luther's Hostility to Jews was not the same as modern anti-Semitism does not excuse it." --CTSWyneken 13:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't say it's not anti-Semitism. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not at this point analyzing, just reporting. Please note that he does say it's not modern antisemitism. By the way, do you have any scholars you wish to report on? We're data gathering here. --CTSWyneken 19:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you quote what he actually says with a citation (book and page number)? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  it is above. The 380 is the page number and the words are in quotations. --CTSWyneken 19:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baptists 

message: Does anyone know what this means? "In this treatise Luther uncritically reproduces material that had been previously written by Nicholas of Lyra (Pulcherrimae quaestiones Iudaicam perfidam in catholicam fide improbantes), Paul of Burgos (Scrutinium Scripturarum), and Anthony Margaritha (Der gantz Jüdisch glaub) against the Jews. (Pelikan, Jaroslav & Lehmann, Helmut (eds). Luther's Works. Vol. 47: "The Christian in Society" IV, Sherman, Franklin (ed) (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), 121-306, especially, 130-31, 137-38.) SlimVirgin (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't see this days ago when it was removed, so as the author of this sentence I would like to explain what it means: according to the introduction of the English translation of On the Jews in Luther's Works Luther used the anti-semitic/anti-judaic material in these sources. Studying On the Jews shows that he did so "uncritically", which means indiscriminately. He simply reproduced material that was in them, accepting them as true, without examining their truthfulness. Anthony Margaritha was a former Jewish man, who converted to Christianity, who wrote anti-semitic pamphlets in the 16th Century that were even more extreme than Luther's. Drboisclair 15:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unclear sentence

message: The page number for the new Marius quote is in error. Does anyone know what page it's on. --CTSWyneken 20:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for fixing this. --CTSWyneken 14:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Marius Quote 

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

message: I'm moving sections around trying to introduce some narrative flow. I can't understand what this paragraph is supposed to mean, or what the implications are meant to be: "During the twenty-five years following Luther's death, Luther's polemics had very little effect on the treatment of Jews.  In the 1570s, however, Pastor Georg Nigrinus published a book, Enemy Jew and a republication of the work by Nicolas Selnecker, one of the authors of the Formula of Concord. Neither appear to have influenced either princes or the general population. (Johannes Wallmann, "The Reception of Luther's Writings on the Jews from the Reformation to the End of the 19th Century." Lutheran Quarterly ns 1(1987)No. 1:72-78.)
:: People ignored Luther's On the Jews... and other venomous writings. Two pastors resuttected it in the 1570s. They had little effect on the population in general. By the way, this is a direct quote from a scholar. The citation at the end of the paragraph is for the whole paragraph. --CTSWyneken 01:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not in quotation marks. The paragraph just sat there, not leading from or to anything. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have only begun to add quotations from this essay. All the other changes and challenges have taken my time up. Let's put the quotations in, then. If you want to know where its going, it documents that Luther's On the Jews was, with the exception of a few writers, ignored from the early 17th Century until the eve of the 20th. --CTSWyneken 01:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But it doesn't say that. As I said, it just sat there going nowhere. Regardless of POV, the writing on this page was very poor, and the above was an example of it. Quote after quote stuck in with no regard for narrative flow, or even whether the thing actually said what it was being used to say. The least we can do, while we disagree over POV, is to get the writing straightened out. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is true, but I contend this is due to the strife. If you are content to let the other points of view stand for the time being, allow references to be corrected without objecting, or, at least allow me to help you acquire essays you do not have so that you can verify them, we will have the opportunity to attend to the thimg. Will the proposal below work for you?--CTSWyneken 12:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Query

message: I've tried to edit the page for flow because it was just a series of disjointed quotes. It's still far from perfect — too much quoting, not enough summarizing or story-telling — but it's better than it was. I've also moved the long excerpts to another page. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In case anyone wonders, I had to make lots of little edits in case someone was reverting from underneath me, and also because there was a formatting problem at one point, where one of the blockquotes was causing all the paragraphs to run together, but it took some fiddling before I found it. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You've done good work here, although we really should put something in about how the work was received and viewed between the time Luther died and the Nazis resurrected it. That is the topic of the Wallmann essay, whose quotes you removed. I'll try summarizing language to get this information back into the article. --CTSWyneken 14:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edited for flow

message: "Lutheran pastor Russell Briese has said that "historians are at a loss to find a direct link between the anti-semitism of Luther's time and that of Hitler's campaign.""
Could someone explain what Briese's expertise is in this area? Is he a known scholar of Luther? We have him credited as a Lutheran pastor. I'd suggest this would not be sufficient to consider him informed. If he is an expert in the study of Luther's influence, or of Hitler, then fair enough, but please do give reason for including his views. I have removed them in the meanwhile. Grace Note 01:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please let us know what his credentials are? I do not believe it is a "balancing quote". It looks like a partisan defence of Luther. I daresay many Lutheran pastors could and would make it, given the opportunity, but they do not have the credentials for their defence to be taken seriously. Grace Note 01:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: And Lutheran Forum is not a "scholarly journal". It would be misleading to describe it so. It is a collection of writings by Lutherans aimed at other Lutherans, selected by a parish pastor. It is not peer reviewed. Grace Note 01:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The worst of it is we make the source look bad and ourselves look silly, because his quote about historians struggling to find a link is sandwiched between the publisher of a Nazi newspaper saying "there was a link," and a British historian saying "there was a link," and is followed by an article full of other historians saying "there was a link." If you want to find a balancing quote for the intro, there must be a better one than that around. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly right and largely why I suggested that his credentials be supplied. Because here is a guy who doesn't seem to be up on the scholarship, claiming that there is no link.Grace Note 01:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is much debate in the scholarly community about the connection between Luther, this work and Hitler. Briese makes this point the clearest of all. It is POV to delete this quotation. You are also wrong about Lutheran Forum. It is peer reviewed and cited in peer reviewed literature. If you'd like, I can demonstrate that. Given time, I can produce Bliese's credentials as well. Or replace it with a Rupp quote that makes the same point. I am away from my notes. That is why the Siemon-Netto quote, the best I had at hand went in. I would prefer to return to the quote from Bliese, or remove both this quote and the Johnson quote, whose own credentials should be checked, if you wish to go that route. --CTSWyneken 10:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: All this shows is that he is a certified clergyman. He could be an authority on matters of Lutheran theology (though I doubt it, as he is not terrbly notable), but he is no authority on Martin Luther and the Jews, as he is not an historian, let alone an historian competent in anti-Semitism and the ideological roots of Nazism. Pecher Talk 18:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Briese's Doctorate is from a respected German University. His dissertation and the book derived from it are in the history of Lutheran theology. This requires an intimate knowledge of the works of Luther in the original Latin and German. He has written for several publications on a wide variety of historical topics. He is at least as qualified as Paul Johnson, a Journalist, who writes on popular histories on a variety of topics. If we are going to quote one, we should quote the other. If we do not quote one, we should not quote the other. --CTSWyneken 19:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russell Briese 

message: Dr. Russell Briese holds a 1994 Doctoral degree in Theology from the University of Regensburg (Germany). He serves as a Lutheran pastor in Australia. --CTSWyneken 13:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All this shows is that he is a certified clergyman. He could be an authority on matters of Lutheran theology (though I doubt it, as he is not terrbly notable), but he is no authority on Martin Luther and the Jews, as he is not an historian, let alone an historian competent in anti-Semitism and the ideological roots of Nazism. Pecher Talk 18:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Briese's Doctorate is from a respected German University. His dissertation and the book derived from it are in the history of Lutheran theology. This requires an intimate knowledge of the works of Luther in the original Latin and German. He has written for several publications on a wide variety of historical topics. He is at least as qualified as Paul Johnson, a Journalist, who writes on popular histories on a variety of topics. If we are going to quote one, we should quote the other. If we do not quote one, we should not quote the other. --CTSWyneken 19:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russell Briese Qualifications 

message: I have restated the section about Luther's sympathising with Jews, so that the two views are parallel. One cannot give as a fact one writer's view and as an opinion another's. 
:"Heiko Oberman states that earlier in his career, Luther had appeared to sympathize with the Jews, Heiko Oberman, Luther: Man Between God and the Devil (New York: Image Books, 1989), p.293. especially regarding their treatment under the Papacy, declaring that "[t]he Jews are blood-relations of our Lord, the Jews belong more to Christ than we"Martin Luther, "That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew," Trans. Walter I. Brandt, in Luther's Works (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1962), 200-201, 229. in the hope of converting them to Christianity, although historian Paul Halsall has disagreed with that view, stating that "Luther's hatred of Jews ... was present very early on" and was "not some affectation of old age." Halsall, Paul. "Internet Medieval Sourcebook" (Retrieved January 4 2005)."
Grace Note 01:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a nice rework of what is there. Others beside both these people make similar points. You may want to review the documentation at Martin Luther and the Jews, which documents the earlier Luther's positive comments about the Jews more thoroughly that this. I don't think we need to expand it much here, since we're not dealing with the topic in-depth here, but perhaps you might suggest some tweaking of language. --CTSWyneken 12:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oberman/Halsall 

message: I have a bit more tweaking of refs before they're 100 per cent. Will do more tomorrow. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That would be great! Thanks for that work. It is a bit of a drudge. I hope the new bot does this well and efficiently. --CTSWyneken 11:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Refs

message: This is disruptive editing. That quote is about the book and is from a well-known writer. The quote you want to use makes the source and the intro look bad, isn't even about the book, and is from a completely unknown writer (if he's a writer at all). If you have access to so much material about Luther, as you claim to, find a quote about the book and one that sounds more intelligent. If you're unable to, that's your own fault. Do not delete appropriate, referenced material again. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please restore the Briese quote, then. There are two scholarly schools of thought on this subject. To  represent one without the other is POV. May I also suggest that, since you have deleted a fair number of cited passages that you restore them if you feel this way. Can we agree on one set of rules here? --CTSWyneken 19:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Briese quote is just a random opinion; there is no indication that it represents a scholarly school of thought. If it did, you could easily quote some prominent adherents. Pecher Talk 20:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CTS, if his views do represent a significant minority, why can't you find another quote (about the book, not about Luther in general)? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

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

text:  I will shortly add a quote from Rupp. --CTSWyneken 10:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you find one that makes the intro look good (as in intelligent), and it's from a published writer on the subject, and is about the book, not about Luther in general, I'm sure it'll be welcomed. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disruption

message: Please leave the impetus section, which is some of the original material of this article when it was first put in. Editors seem to want to put in so much of what the 20th and 21st Century scholars are saying. At least leave in helpful data that speaks to the Sixteenth Century contemporaneous data surrounding the treatise. Of course, some may think that this makes Luther look too good. This is a cooperative effort, not the work of simply one POV among many.Drboisclair 23:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Write it properly if you want to include it. There was a lot of bad writing in this article and I removed some of it for good reason. As it is, it just stands there not explaining itself. What do you mean by it? Say what scholars intend when they refer to it. Say what it shows, what it implies. Place it within the narrative. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not keep reverting without addressing this concern. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is clearer than to state that Luther reproduced material from Lyra, Burgos, and Margaritha? What is clearer to state why he wrote the article: to counteract an anti-Christian pamphlet sent to him by Falkenau? Drboisclair 00:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you refer me to your source(s) and I will try to write it for you? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please leave the "impetus" section in 

message: You changed the Luther and Hitler section to Luther and 20th century anti-Semitic writing. But the source compares his program to Hitler's. Who else were you thinking he is compared to? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be true but the source also says that Luther got material from Nicholas of Lyra, Paul of Burgos, and Anthony Margaritha. There is a valid reason for including this in this article. Drboisclair 23:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't understand your reply. You changed it from Hitler to 20th century anti-Semitism. So who in the 20th century, if not Hitler, are there alleged parallels with, according to the sources? By all means change it to a more accurate title so long as it's not one that whitewashes or uses weasel wording. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Writing this article as NPOV means to indicate that there is "alleged" parallels, not state as a fact that there are parallels. That is non NPOV. Drboisclair 23:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless, you're not allowed to violate 3RR. The next time you violate it, I'm going to report it.SlimVirgin (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: This is clearly a lampoon. I don't possess a copy of this book, but I think that one should acquire one to see if it violates the copyright. Of course, that does not concern us here. Its inclusion here is a 20th Century caricature. Drboisclair 01:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you serious? Yes, you're right. I wonder if it is appropriate to put Doré's work on the cover of a work by Luther. I guess that Doré should be put in the category: Antisemitic people if he isn't already.  Drboisclair 01:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Putting a 19th-century anti-Jewish illustration of a 17th-century anti-Jewish folk myth on the cover of a 20th-century edition of a 16th-century anti-Jewish book is an interesting juxtaposition, but I don't really see how it belongs here except as propaganda; the only connection between the engraving and the book is in the point of view of the publisher of the book. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with you on this. As a Luther scholar myself I would like to get a copy of it, perhaps I can get it from Amazon or ebay. It may be a new translation. Drboisclair 01:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's Amazon's page. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, even more irony. It's published by Liberty Bell Press, which is dedicated to republishing the works of the remarkable Revilo P. Oliver. Perhaps we really don't want it here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's here because it's the cover of the edition currently available. It's quite standard to illustrate pages about books using their current covers. If we didn't do it here, we'd be making an exception and I see no reason to do that. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. You do understand that this is, essentially, promoting a publication of the National Vanguard. That's who "Liberty Bell Publications" is now. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I didn't realize that. I looked it up on Amazon and that's what they took me to. I'll take another look. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Josh. I found this about the publisher. Should we delete the cover, or is the fact that they're publishing it something that should go in the article? SlimVirgin (talk) 12:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no problem with antisemitic caricature, as long as we indicate it as such. Articles on Anti-Semitism, Neo-Nazism, etc. contain such images (including bookcovers) and I don't think this serves as promotion. IMHO, the best way to fight hatred is to expose it, not to hide it. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

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

text:  This edition is proving difficult to get. Only two libraries in the country have it. One copy is off the shelf, the other no-circulating. I'll have to call a librarian on this. --CTSWyneken 12:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The cover of the 2004 book 

message: There is much evidence that Jews were considered a "race" from the
start of Chrstian times. Evidence is found in St. Augustine, St. Isidore of
Seville, Peter the Venerable, St. Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, and
institutionalized in the Church long before Poliakov's "Spain of the
Inquisition."
“Not only did institutionalized racism begin in 15th-century Spain (the
Inquisition ran from the late 15th through the early 19th centuries), but I would
argue that a Christian racism can be detected as early as the 4th century in
Sts. Augustine and John Chrysostom. Moreover, is not the belief in inherent
and inherited traits what characterizes 19th-century racism as well, the
same emphasis on evil vs good blood occurs among the Spanish, and is implied
in Luther, as well as 19th-century writers.” Ref:: Michael. racial
antisemitism vs mala sangre. Apr 1997
Luther wrote of the Jews as if they were a race that could
not truly convert to Christianity. Indeed, like so many Christian
writers before him, Luther, by making the Jews the devil's people,
put them beyond conversion. Trying to convert the Jews, he
argued, was like "trying to cast out the devil . . .."43 "They have
failed to learn any lesson from the terrible distress that has been
theirs for over fourteen hundred years in exile. . . . If these blows
do not help, it is reasonable to assume that our talking and
explaining will help even less. . . . Much less do I propose to
convert the Jews, for that is impossible."44 In a sermon of 25
September 1539, Luther tried to demonstrate through several
examples that individual Jews could not convert permanently,45
and in several passages of The Jews and Their Lies, Luther
appeared to reject the possibility that the Jews would or could
convert.” 
Luther writes:
"Oh, that was too insulting for the noble blood and race of Israel …"
"Jews boast of their circumcision before God, presuming that God should regard them graciously for that reason, though they should certainly know from Scripture that they are not the only race circumcised in compliance with God's decree, and that they cannot on that account be God's special people."
"And still they claim to be God's servants and to stand before him. They are the boastful, arrogant rascals who to the present day can do no more than boast of their race and lineage, praise only themselves, and disdain and curse all the world in their synagogues, prayers, and doctrines."
"They boast of their race and of their descent from the fathers, but they neither see nor pay attention to the fact that he chose their race that they should keep his commandments."
I've also pointed out how scholars describe the evidence of Luther's Jew hatred in his early works like his Spalatin Letters.  But more importantly, please consider In his 1543 work, On the Jews and their Lies, Luther asks, "What then shall we do with this damned, rejected race of Jews?." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_Luther_and_the_Jews&diff=30686984&oldid=29637948
And, of course, this was immediately deleted by StanZegel several times
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_Luther_and_the_Jews&diff=next&oldid=30686984 and then by Humus sapiens 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_Luther_and_the_Jews&diff=next&oldid=30911747
Doright 00:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't want to get into the discussion whether ML was a racist in the modern sense or not, and I explained why on talk, with the support of WP:RS. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should be happy. I added germane information to Nicholas of Lyra who wrote: Pulcherrimae quaestiones Iudaicam perfidam in catholicam fide improbantes. I think that the whole truth should be brought out in history. Drboisclair 00:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm curious. Do we have any knowledge of contemporary responses to Luther's treatise? Was it considered extraordinary? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  Yes. By and large, they were horrified. I had a section that Slim deleted from an article that traced the history of the use of On the Jews... through the beginning of the 17th Century. The article goes through the twentieth. For twenty-five years, no one reprinted it. After twenty-five years, only a few editions were printed. Then silence. No printing of the treatise in popular editions until just before the Nazi era. Other, vicious, antisemitic diatribes were issued, but none referred to Luther (if memory serves) Only That Jesus Christ Was Born A Jew saw play. Then, when the Nazis discovered it, they used it after the fact to justify their horrors. If you can find the information, it is the Wallmann (sp?)article Lutheran Quarterly. In the morning, I will dig it up. Providing, of course, Slim will not delete it again. I get tired of doing work that isn't good enough. I have a theological journal issue to finish fact checking, and I can't afford a waste of effort. --CTSWyneken 03:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, regardless of how much of it ends up in the article (I can't judge until I know what's there; perhaps you could look at the history and point me to the deleted material you refer to), I'd like to know more about it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  Talk:On the Jews and Their Lies (Martin Luther)#Query has the info deleted from this page. Similar info from the same article is at Martin Luther and the Jews#16th and 17th century. Additions from this essay was interrupted by activity at work, which took me away from it and I wandered off to other wiki projects when things eased. If I put this material back and finish summarizing it, however, I will not be happy to have it dissmissed, deleted and attacked. --CTSWyneken 10:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's important material -- the immediate impact of the treatise is informative. However, there's no guaratee that your work won't be "dismissed, deleted ,and attacked"; this is Wikipedia, and that's one of the more unpleasant risks one takes if one chooses to edit here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't put it back as it was. Perhaps you could open up a user subpage for drafts, then add material to the article when it's ready. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Luther's Hatred of Jews as a Race