Talk:On the Jews and Their Lies/Archive 4

message: I tried to add the archive navigation button to both archive pages, but it got screwed up because there is no space after the word Archive and the #1?? So I left as is. See WP:ARCHIVE on how this works. Also, I noticed a break in the talk page editing from 3/27/06 to 5/8/06?? Why was this?? Thanks --Tom 16:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The response to my question above got inserted as I was archiving so it appears at the botton of archive2, it seems that it was just quiet in here. (I find that REALLY hard to believe :) j/k ). --Tom 16:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Doright, I am now reading how you aren't happy that some of the discussion is only a day old. It seems that will ALWAYS be the case the way you folks are, er, "working things out" in here :). Anyways, can't you just make mention of it in a new header or referrence the old header and folks can go back and take a peak?? Anyways, with of friend SV on the sidelines (it BETTER be temporary in case she is lurking) I thought I would try to help out. Again, no disrespect intended. Thanks! --Tom 16:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand what you wrote. Nor do I understand why you and CTSWyneken insist on blanking this talk page of 100% of its content, including current discussions.  Please review  ["you should leave current, ongoing discussions on the existing talk page"]. Doright 22:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Doright for not making sense. In the future, I will only archive part of the talk page, that does make sense and I didn't even think of it. If you like, just go above to where it says Archive2 and cut the part you want and paste it in here and then delete it from the archive. It may be a little messy, but no big deal. Is that OK? Or just continue the dilogue below. --Tom 00:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived talk page

message: In On The Jews and Their Lies,Martin Luther repeatedly attacks Jews as a race. Luther states:
"There, Jew, you have your boast, and we Gentiles have ours together with you, as well as you with us. Now go ahead and pray that God might respect your nobility, your race, your flesh and blood."Martin Luther. On the Jews and Their Lies, Martin Bertram, trans., in Luther's Works Vol. 47, The Christian in Society, IV, ed. Franklin Sherman, Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971)Doright 23:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Direct Quotations from Martin Luther that Attacks Jews Specifically as a Race

message: Dear fellow editors: I've invited discussion of the reliability of h-antisemitism on the talk page of WP:RS. Please drop by and comment [here]. Doright 23:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Attempt to ban h-antisemitism from Wikipedia

message: For the record, user Doright added new quotations to the article whose citations were not correctly formatted, lacked pagination, and took a position in a debate between Luther scholars and Dr. Robert Michael (and possibly others). I corrected these as far as I was able at the moment, did some rearranging of the section. User Doright reverted the whole lot, characterizing it as a POV distortion. 
I have obtained a copy of the Lewis article and read enough to see the summary does not do it justice. I will report the results when time permits analysis and identification of the pagination of the selections in our current text. It would be nice if he would provide page numbers.
Since I will not engage him directly, I would appreciate someone else weigh in on the issues involved.
The diffs are:
his new contributions.
after my corrections, additions and rearrangements.
his revert -- notice characterization in edit summary.
My revert.--CTSWyneken 14:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, JP. To avoid an edit war, I'll leave it alone for now. I have just put up the verify flag on the section. I'll await the comments of others, since I do not talk with Doright. In the mean time, I will read the Lewis article, summarize my thoughts on it and report back. 
--CTSWyneken 20:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In addition to the problems above, some of which render this article inaccurate, pagination is missing for the Luther quotes in the body of the text and in the footnotes. Persumably the user has a copy of the text at hand and can supply them. Without them, the quotes remain unverified. --CTSWyneken 21:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Jpgordon, you say, "Well, your changes look good to me."  Here are two of those changes ([First] and [Second] ). Both claim WP:OR as the rationalization for removal.  The 1st deletes the sentence,"See footnotes for additional race quotes."  The 2nd deletes the phrase,"while invoking a concept of race"  from the sentence, "In On The Jews and Their Lies, Martin Luther repeatedly attacks Jews while invoking a concept of race."   Please identify the reasoning that leads to the conclusion that it is OR. Also, note that this "good looking" edit leaves the additional race quotes dangling in the footnotes without context or explanation. Doright 05:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please note I do not reply to this user. --CTSWyneken 21:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry CTSWyneken, if you continue to refuse to identify exactly what it is you claim could not be verified, your tag will be removed.  Please see WP:DISRUPT.  It makes no sense to run up a red flag and then refuse to answer the simple question of "why?"  Please review WP:Civil.  Also, please do no use such tags as rhetorical devices or as a personal reminder that you have not yet had time to read the sources. Doright 01:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: CTSWyneken, I've just discovered that you responded to my request, not in this section, but in the  preceeding section.  Some might interpret the placement of the response in a section preceeding the one containing the question as swizzling.  Please do not embed your replies in random sections of the talk page.Doright 06:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: CTSWyneken, your rationalization does not support the application of the tag to the entirety of section 3 and all its subsections.Doright 06:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doright's revision of improvements 

message: CTSWyneken,  Which citations are you claiming could not be verified?  It may not be good practice to use this flag for material that you have not taken the time to read.  It's probably better to reserve it for citations for which you have at least conducted some due dilligence. Doright 21:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please note I do not reply to this user. --CTSWyneken 21:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry CTSWyneken, if you continue to refuse to identify exactly what it is you claim could not be verified, your tag will be removed.  Please see WP:DISRUPT.  It makes no sense to run up a red flag and then refuse to answer the simple question of "why?"  Please review WP:Civil.  Also, please do no use such tags as rhetorical devices or as a personal reminder that you have not yet had time to read the sources. Doright 01:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CTSWyneken, I've just discovered that you responded to my request, not in this section, but in the  preceeding section.  Some might interpret the placement of the response in a section preceeding the one containing the question as swizzling.  Please do not embed your replies in random sections of the talk page.Doright 06:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: CTSWyneken, your rationalization does not support the application of the tag to the entirety of section 3 and all its subsections.Doright 06:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition of the {Not verified} tag

message: We had done good for a while, but I guess were back to the old ways of this talk page. Well, peace can't last forever. Good luck to all!!! Thetruthbelowtalk 06:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Same old Martin Luther talk page 

message: Please note that Doright once again has engaged in Personal Attacks at Analysis of Citations... --CTSWyneken 11:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record [here] is Merzbow's edit.  By reverting to your version, he is obviously doing everything you admit to having done in the edit.  Since you have repeatedly stated that you refuse to engage in rational discourse with me, I ask him why he did it.  I must say, my conversation with him has been refreshing to this point.  [Here], you can see his response and the ensuing discussion.  It is nothing like one would be led to believe from what at least one admin has referred to as your "hysterical accusations."   I've asked you before to try to focus on the articles and not me personally and as others have warned you before, you could find yourself banned from editing these pages.  Please stop while the choice is still your.--Doright 09:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doright attacks again 

message: The next improvements I suggest are the following:
# Rewrite the summary of the Lewis article so it reflects what the scholar says accurately. --CTSWyneken 13:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This all sounds good, but don't worry yourself about who is going to revert what. There's multiple pairs of eyes on this article now. - Merzbow 16:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I made the move, the most modest of the changes proposed above. Let's see if it stays in place.--CTSWyneken 13:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since the change has remained in place, I have now removed the redundant references. If this stays in place, I will next offer a replacement paragraph that summarizes the Lewis article accurately. --CTSWyneken 13:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current [[On the Jews and Their Lies#Influence on modern anti-Semitism|Influence on modern anti-Semitism]] 

message: The link in Note 37 of this  version of the page takes us to a message log and not to the email that is the source of the quote. In addition, no message "Christian Racism, Part 2." Exists on this page. This reference needs to be corrected. --CTSWyneken 12:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another inaccurate citation 

message: First it was CTS, then me, now Merzbow. Please cease these uncalled for attacks. Thetruthbelow 00:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merzbow, did I attack you?Doright 09:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doright Please don't attack users 

message: ::Thetruthbelow, please explain your reason for reverting properly cited and relevant material.  Also, please explain your deletion of my request for citation on other material.Doright 08:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I took so long to answer this request, as I was at work today. On the topic of my revert, I must say that I made a mistake. I only wished to revert Dorights change to the header called Anti-semitism, which he changed to Christian anti-semitism, and not the properly cited material. I have reinserted it, and to Doright, I offer my humblest apology. I apologize for the edit, as it was never my intention to revert the cited material. Thetruthbelow 18:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for explanation of reversions by Thetruthbelow

message: I intend to remove note 17 in this version of the text and the quote it supports. The reference is as follows: "Michael, Robert., "Christian racism, part 2", H-Net Discussions Networks, 2 Mar 2000."  This matter was mentioned above and no reply has been given.
Reason: The reference given leads to a menu and there is no message on this list entitled: "Christian racism, part 2." I invite anyone who has an opinion one way or another on this proposed change to comment here on the matter. --CTSWyneken 18:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, JP! If there are no objections, I'll fix the reference and link. --CTSWyneken 19:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intent to remove citation and supported text 

message: Please note the following:
# Doright attacks a statement made by me before I had the chance to check his references, --CTSWyneken 11:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attacks and inaccuracies  in the latest Doright comments here 

message: Dear Doright, since, as evidenced above, you insist on attacking users, and since not engaging you directly has not resulted in any change in this pattern, I will try once more to reason with you. 
If you will cease to question user's motives, stop belittling them, calling them names, taunting them and other forms of personal attack, I will engage you directly again. 
Further, if you will cease making unilateral changes, and instead discuss them first, will take greater care in citing your sources and abstracting them, we may well be able to work together.
If you continue on this path, however, I will seek to involve other to formally convince you to conduct yourself according to Wikipedia:No personal attacks --CTSWyneken 12:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Message for User Doright 

message: For ease of reference, I'm gathering documentation of views on whether Luther's motives were racial at:
Talk:Martin Luther and the Jews/Religious or Racial Antisemitism
Please feel free to add references to secondary sources here. --CTSWyneken 13:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New subpage:  [[Talk:Martin Luther and the Jews/Religious or Racial Antisemitism]] 

message: Could somebody kindly post here the material to which CTSWyneken was referring? Also I would encourage others to weigh in generally. Hello! hello...hello... (echo... echo... echo......). Hey I thought this was a controversial topic! --Mantanmoreland 23:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I cut back on the Michael quote. I think the presentation is fairer now. I don't believe Wikipedia should take a position on this issue. --Mantanmoreland 15:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material surveying use of On the Jews 

message: The manner in which Paul Halsall's intro to the excerpts of the Medieval Source Book were quoted in this article gave the impression that it was only Luther's views that laid the groundwork for 19th Century racial anti-Semitism. This is not allowing the full information in the quotation to come through. As it stood it was making Halsall say what the editor wanted him to say. Halsall says that Luther's writings were part of a medieval tradition of Christian anti-Semitism, which as a whole laid the groundwork for 19th Century anti-Semitism. The way it was there originally was a distortion of what Halsall wrote. Not a deliberate distortion, I would hope, but a distortion nonetheless.--Drboisclair 20:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, you've added the full quote and rightly so. I don't think you need to add a sentence saying what you have here is merely "part of medieval anti-Semitism" outside the quotes, in Wikipedia's voice. Sorry, it struck me as a POV push, so I removed.--Mantanmoreland 20:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that you were right to remove it, but I hope that you will agree with the last change I made. Thank you for your assistance in this. I think that you are right to keep out editorializing; however, we need to let Halsall say everything he says.--Drboisclair 21:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This is some great editing by both of you. Good job Matt B."aka" Thetruthbelow 21:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Matt, and Shalom,--Drboisclair 21:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Halsall does not only mention what Luther wrote 

message: Hello everyone...I just moved the TOC to kill all that whitespace. If you have any complaints, please list them here. Ttb 07:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New TOC 

message: I would like to take up the removal of the title page of an abridged version of the work put out by an extremist group. There is no need for this image here in this article. I have bought a copy of the book to see what it was like, and I have found that it distorts this writing. The title page displayed higher up was used to print Luther's writing while this image was never a part of Luther's original publication in the 16th Century. The Wandering Jew is not even a theme in the book.--Drboisclair 07:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  David, is this book the same translation as the American Edition, or is it an entirely different one? --CTS Wyneken(talk) 10:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a different translation, but it is a small, cheap, inadequate presentation of Luther's writing. I am removing the image.--Drboisclair 15:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is there any indication of when the translation was made? --CTS Wyneken(talk) 15:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no indication when this translation was made. It is a few excerpts put onto 58 pages with 14 point print. It is an anti-semitic group that puts this out, people who are too ashamed to put their names to it. I imagine that some of the editors on this website got some of their information about "On the Jews" by getting this cheap, trashy publication. I gather that the library did not get it. Good idea. THE TRANSLATION IS NOT THE SAME AS THAT OF BERTRAM, so there is no copyright vio. It claims to be a reprint with the year 2004 the only one presented as to publcation.--Drboisclair 17:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of a ridiculous printing of this work 

message: I was just going through some of the comments and it occurred to me that there might be an underlying issue here that has not been voiced, but which might be the cause of the testiness that I have observed among some editors. I.e., that Luther's writings, particularly this one, might be interpreted as reflecting on the modern Church. That's a valid concern and certainly one that should be addressed. So toward the end of the article -- right after the lengthy quote section -- I inserted an excerpt from a 1994 Lutheran Church declaration disavowing Luther's anti-Semitic writings. I think this belongs in the article and I hope it assuages some of the unspoken and reasonable concerns that perhaps some editors may have. It's a good statement and one that I'm sure Monsignor Oesterreicher would be proud of. --Mantanmoreland 14:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur, and appreciate the sensitivity. Let's provide a more complete picture, and fuller references. Ptmccain 14:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is helpful and germane. Thank you. My concern is more that the work of scholars be represented. --CTS Wyneken(talk) 14:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Good for me, if it's good for you! 8-) --CTS Wyneken(talk) 15:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and I have a further request. I will be blunt about this. This is not directed at you, but "to whom it may concern." Stop trying to get a certain user "banned" for this and that transgression. You know who I mean. Enough with that already. It just raises the pitch.--Mantanmoreland 15:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: And it would also be good to take note of the fact that if and when a "certain user" stops his harassing behavior toward CTSWyneken there will in all probability be a much lower pitch to everything concerning these articles on Wikipedia.Ptmccain 20:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mantanmoreland, I can understan where you are coming from, but you must also realize where Pt has experienced. This "certain user" has in many peoples eyes attacked a great editor here for little reason, and has also greatly disrupted several articles. Matt B."aka" Thetruthbelow 22:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I will pay closer attention to future disputes in real time and weigh in where necessary. I've found over time that there are two sides to every story. --Mantanmoreland 01:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks good to me.Ptmccain 20:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lutheran Church condemnation 

message: Sorry -- just wanted to clarify, as my edit summary was screwed up. Drboisclair was kind enough to email to me a copy of the Wallman paper, which states very forthrightly that he is responding to the prevailing view of historians, as stated. I removed a sentence in the beginning of the section which indicated Wallman's view that the Luther's views were ignored until the 20th Century. This has no place at the beginning of the article and the reference should be confined to the section where it is now mentioned. It is clearly a minority view and should not be given excess weight. WP:NPOV. I again thank Drboisclair for his assistance with this.--Mantanmoreland 18:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm glad you have a copy of the essay. I do not recall Wallmann saying the prevailing view was that ON THE JEWS had a persistant influence. I recall him saying there were three opinions and that the evidence he cites supports the contention that the influence was minimal. Could you provide the page number where he says this so that I can review it tomorrow? Thanks! --CTS Wyneken(talk) 19:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Page 73: "The assertion that Luther's expressions ..."--Drboisclair 19:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, David. I'll review the article in the AM. --CTS Wyneken(talk) 19:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad edit summary 

message: His CV is on the Internet. As you can see, this man is a journalist. His vocation is "international journalist and editorial consultant" as well as lay minister.--Mantanmoreland 01:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because he is a journalist does not take away from the fact that he earned his doctorate from Boston University, and his masters from LSTC. BTW, as I understand it William Shirer was a journalist as well. He is eminently qualified to write on this topic. Dr. Siemon-Netto is also a professor at a prestigious theological seminary, that has accreditation from two accreditating agencies, Northwestern being one. He is hardly a flunkie.--Drboisclair 03:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I would venture to say that the fact that Dr. Siemon-Netto has been a journalist should speak in his favor since this is William Shirer's claim to fame. I haven't seen where Shirer earned a degree, although I see he did go to college. I wouldn't deny that William Shirer is eminent to speak on the topic of Nazism and Nazi Germany, but unless he did the detailed research on the specific topic he is no more reliable than anyone else. It is the pedants rather than the poets that are more often right. Siemon-Netto and Shirer being journalists bespeaks well of their ability to write interesting history.--Drboisclair 03:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Point of correction: In Lutheran terms, Siemon-Netto is not a Lay Minister, a commissioned Church Worker, charged with the care of souls. He is a lay theologian, one whose writings in the area of doctrine are respected and recognized by the church. --CTS Wyneken(talk) 11:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ecclesiastical credentials are of no relevancy whatsoever. His own CV describes himself as a "journalist" and "editorial consultant." More importantly, this POV is overrepresentated. Wallman's is enough. A block quote from the thoughts of this "editorial consultant" is overkill and is a blatant POV push to soften the prevailing view of mainstream scholars and historians.--Mantanmoreland 13:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Evidently you are not familiar with the scholastic community. Theological colleges and seminaries are just as accredited as secular institutions. Boston University is a secular college: his doctorate is not even from an ecclesiastical institution. I think that this is nidpicking on your part. Please stop.--Drboisclair 19:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I addressing the remark just prior concerning his religious credentials, which have zero relevancy outside the Lutheran Church. Please address remarks to the edits not editors. Don't say things like "evidently you are not familiar with the scholastic community." I wish I wasn't.--Mantanmoreland 19:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uwe Siemon-Netto is now fully employed as a professor. As to your rebuke to me: You should do the same; your track record with WP:CIVIL is fairly shaky. He is a scholar, so please stop reverting.--Drboisclair 19:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Until approximately 72 hours ago, when you viewed me as an ally in this article, my "track record" with you and the pro-Luther contingent was perfect. Funny how my honest disagreement with you and other editors has turned me into your favorite target. Well, I guess snide remarks and a constant stream of ad hominems from you and other editors are better than the user page vandalism I received from another one of your pals.--Mantanmoreland 20:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Drb, SN is not fully employed as a professor. He is a journalist, as his own CV that he wrote makes very clear. He may have a position calling him a "scholar in residence" but normally those things amount to the receipt of a grant and free or subsidized accommodation. He also says what he does there is teach journalism or journalism-related topics. Please list the scholarly papers he has produced in the last two years and say which peer-reviewed journal they were published in. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uwe Siemon-Netto 

message: The reversion that I reverted was uncalled for. The material was properly sourced. What was suspect was the removal of it from the section that it belonged in. The unscholarly slighting of Dr. Uwe Siemon-Netto is nothing less than unscholarly and childish. The editor should stop his actions which are almost tantamount to vandalism.--Drboisclair 15:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please tone down your comments and stop making wild charges. Comment on the edit, not the editor, and don't make personal attacks. We've exchanged many a pleasant email that suddenly acquired a hostile tone and I daresay troubling character when I disagreed with you. You were all agog over my fairness and evenhandedness and I suddenly became the Devil when I disagreed with you. Disagreement is no reason for you to behave in this fasion. Please stop.--Mantanmoreland 15:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that you are exaggerating here. These are not charges, let alone "wild charges"; they properly characterize your edits which slight Dr. Uwe Siemon-Netto. Your reversion was uncalled for, though it is your privilege. Please stop slighting Dr. Siemon-Netto.--Drboisclair 15:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you assume he is being slighted by being called a journalist? SlimVirgin (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Being a Cambridge alumna, how can you say that earning a Ph.D. does not qualify him being called a scholar? William Shirer is a journalist, but he is considered a scholar with his book on the Nazis. This has all the appearance of disparaging scholars and fellow editors. I protest it.--Drboisclair 15:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: He characterizes himself as a journalist and editorial consultant, author of a screed attacking a genuine historian, William Shirer. This hardly qualifies him as a "scholar," and use of that term unecessarily elevates his non-notable book, which is certainly questionable under WP:RS. "Journalist" is accurate and certainly respectable, as is "commentator."--Mantanmoreland 15:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When you cite WP:RS you do not know what you are talking about when you post like this. --Drboisclair 15:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I wonder what the scholarly world will think of this if they view these pages. What qualifies you making this judgment? Maybe in the U.K. a Ph.D. can be excluded from the classification "scholar" but not in the U.S. Dr. Siemon-Netto is a scholar, and Mantanmoreland is simply disputing this because he dislikes users CTSWyneken and myself. This is personal on his part.--Drboisclair 15:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Second warning in ten minutes: Focus on the edits and not the editor. Stop the personal attacks.--Mantanmoreland 15:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do the same, sir.--Drboisclair 16:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And you can put a stop to the emails too. I don't want them. I will change my email address if they continue.--Mantanmoreland 16:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not e-mail you any more, so stop saying that I am still e-mailing you. I will never e-mail you again after your last abusive hate e-mail.--Drboisclair 16:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not an "abusive hate email." I was offended by your reference in a prior email to "Jewish administrators" and other such comments. If I blew my stack, I apologize, but I think that I had provocation.  --Mantanmoreland 16:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Impossible to have a proper dialogue when personal attacks are tossed around. That is separate and apart from the issue of whether or not it is possible to achieve a consensus.--Mantanmoreland 15:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto to that, and I may add that it is difficult when scholars are slighted.--Drboisclair 16:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly don't think this is either a scholar or that he has been slighted by calling him a journalist and editorial consultant, as is his own description of himself on his CV.--Mantanmoreland 16:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  I have edited the sentence to match the information in the Wallmann article, thus to avoid a definition debate over who is a scholar/ --CTS Wyneken(talk) 15:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To no avail. The queen has reverted.--Drboisclair 15:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  David, please do not insult Slim. I can understand your frustration at the attacks of Mantmorland, but do not take it out on her. She has been polite. --CTS Wyneken(talk) 16:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another gratuitous ad hominem. I would add that Drboisclair and I have (I think) resolved the issues between us, which are largely off-wiki I believe, and that your meddling and gratuitous digs, which you have employed before concerning others, only exacerbate matters as they have in the past.--Mantanmoreland 16:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV reversions 

message: I'm not committed to the exact language used here, but I think it is important to be accurate. All the information as it stands in my version is now wholly supported by the Wallmann article.
# Wallmann states that, before the Second World War, the prevailing view among scholars was that the works had little influence upon antisemitism. 
# He states that the prevailing view changed after the war to the continuity thesis, that the works did influence antisemitism from the time they were written until and including the Nazi era. 
# He did a study of the printing of the the quotation of these works from the time of Luther's death until the Nazi era and concludes that the influence was minimal until the rise of the Nazi movement.
#He quotes H. H. Ben-Sasson, editor of volume on the history of the Jews, first published in Tel Aviv and then translated and published in the United Kingdom and the US.
I believe it wise to go this way and avoid the "and who is a scholar" debate that is inevitable if we don't go this way. --CTS Wyneken(talk) 16:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let it lie. The view of historians sixty years ago is secondary. Let's give this a rest.--Mantanmoreland 16:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It appears that Mantamoreland doesn't want to give it a rest. The article now misrepresents scholarship, hense, the NPOV flag. --CTS Wyneken(talk) 19:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it represents correctly the prevailing views of scholars currently. The views of scholars 67 years ago is of little importance. Dwelling on them just, surprise surprise, skews the POV.--Mantanmoreland 21:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CTSW, you overuse the tag. It's not meant to be used every time you disgree with the contents of an article. It's supposed to signal serious POV that can be corrected within our policies. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  To me, this is a serious issue. It misreprents its source, it gives the impression that no opposition to the contention that Luther's antisemitic works exists, when this is not the case. In my opinion, that is what the flag is for. How is it any different than Doright's flag on the Martin Luther page? --CTS Wyneken(talk) 22:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a slightly reworded version as a compromise, with no mention of scholars or commentators, but just a "minority view." Would that work? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Yes, thanks. That is a reasonable solution. --CTS Wyneken(talk) 00:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views on Influence of Luther's antisemitic tracts 

message: What is the point of having the Luther Biographical Timeline Graphic in this article.  If a reader wants Luther's bio, perhaps they will go to the Luther article.  Please stop edit warring and make your case on the talk page.--Doright 04:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your reason for deleting it? It is helpful for the reader to put the material in perspective of Luther's life. Why not leave it be?--Drboisclair 04:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Two reasons. One, it gives folk an idea where this work fits in Luther's life. Two, it takes care of the ugly white space next to the TOC. --CTSWyneken(talk) 11:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Luther totem belongs on the Martin Luther article, not the "On the Jews and Their Lies" article.  This article is not about Luther's life.  If white space is the best you can find, better that than an extraneous distraction. --Doright 22:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doright, you surely didn't mean to refer to the timeline as a "totem." No doubt you just slipped here and made a mistake, I'm sure. That kind of rhetoric surely is not constructive and since it represents a violation of WP:CIVIL I'm quite certain you didn't intend to use that kind of rhetoric. The timeline is just fine and is helpful to locating this document in Luther's life. It should stay. There's no problem with it.Ptmccain 02:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luther Biographical Timeline Graphic 

message: Please note my recent edit revising the internal link "Israel" leading to the page for the modern State of Israel, replacing this with a piped link to the page on the Jewish people (Jews). Contemporary and particularly non-native readers of English unfamiliar with this usage might otherwise misread the intent, even though in context it would be utterly implausible as a reference to the 20th C. state. -- Deborahjay 05:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The meaning of '''[[Israel]]''' [sic] in a quotation 

message: If anyone knows of a German language text version of Von den Juden und ihren Lügen on the net, please post the link here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Repentance (talk • contribs) 16:47, December 28, 2006
::I have it (256 pages).  Not exactly a "pamphlet" as it was once described.  Also have Schem Hamephoras (128 pages), and some others (my rough translation of the titles: "Sermon on Usury" (1520) (34 pages), "Of the last words..." (1543) (169 pages), "A brief against the Sabbather to a good friend" (1538) (65 pages), "Sermon at the Jarsztag of beschnei the dung of the Jews" (1523) (16 pages), and "Jesus Christ eyn geborner Jew sey) (1523) (37 pages).  These may or may not have not been translated into English yet.  Can someone check these against a list of known Martin Luther publications?  Who are the experts on translating Medieval German?  72.235.14.35 03:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What we need are public domain translations of all of these.  I have also made copies of them in case they go away for some reason.  Project Gutenberg is the recommended place for this type of work.  The steps are to create a project, upload the files, and get clearance from Project Gutenberg to start.  Then many people may transcribe the images into text, which can then be translated with translation software which produces a crude but understandable translation.  The text is then edited manually, and then edited again until ready for release.  After they are published, you may link to them from Wikipedia.  MarthaYY 20:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: German Language Text of Von den Juden und ihren Lügen