Talk:Martin Luther and antisemitism/Archive 3

message: Dear Slim: Since you have asked repeatedly that others not delete material added without discussion, you should offer the same courtesy to others, especially new users. Perhaps you might drop by PTMccain's page and try to enage him on the subject, suggest a comprimise, like integrating the material into the existing paragraphs or argue why this should not be done. --CTSWyneken 13:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was objecting to his vandalism, as you should have done. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting the Material Added by a New User 

message: You've done a good job cleaning all this up. I'm glad to see you've joined us here. --CTSWyneken 19:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I'll do more in a bit. Thought I'd hit the noncontroversial stuff first : ) --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice work, MPercel! 

message: As documented and deleted from the Luther articles many times Luther's hatred of Jews was ingrained at a very early age.  He went to school as a boy in a town famous for its antisemitism,  Magdeburg.  I provide some info related to the town here. 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 
Luther also 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."
It was this sort of misconduct, of which that is only a tiny fraction, that led me to the obvious conclusion that the creation of an article for On the Jews and Their Lies was essential to stem the whitewashing of Luther’s and certain others vicious antisemites  and the impact they’ve had on attempts at genocide and other aspects of world history.
Please note, I provided some of the reverters this info (to which I received no reply):
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."
::One trembles for your reply to the query: "Why don't you go on a spree of 'telling the truth' on them?" That is because you do deal in truth, half-truth that is. Drboisclair 23:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr. Doright, Luther attended school in Magdeburg only for one or two years when he was a teenager. He grew up in Mansfeld, and went to school there and in Erfurt for longer periods of time. Your revisionism is phenomenal. What is really tragic in all of this is that persons like you polarize people into opposing camps. Learn to build bridges instead of pouring the petrol on the fire. Drboisclair 23:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hatred of Jewish Race and When Did it Start

message: Moving this controversial quote again: "Australian Lutheran pastor Russell Briese's comments at the Council of Christians and Jews at the Great Synagogue in Sydney: "historians are at a loss to find a direct link between the anti-semitism of Luther's time and that of Hitler's campaign." (Russell Briese, "Martin Luther and the Jews," Lutheran Forum 34 (2000) No. 2:30.)
There has to be a better quote than this somewhere. Briese is almost certainly being quoted out of context, and if you  have any respect for him, CTWS, you won't restore this quote, because it makes him look ill-informed. Please provide a couple of sentences before and after the quote so we can check the context. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, CTSW, could you answer the question I left you on the other page, about Michael's paper? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree it sounds quite damning, if it actually represents what Lutheran scholars think, that they see no link between Luther and the Holocaust; that would be too much blind denial.  Surely a better representative response exists.  Let's try to find something better.  --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The other article quotes Lutheran scholars who agree there's a link, so I'd be surprised if that's actually what Briese said, or intended to say. Seeing some context might shed light on it. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  If you'd like, I can provide this essay for you or help you get a copy. --CTSWyneken 11:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be helpful if it's no trouble, or else perhaps you could just supply the sentence or so surrounding that quote, if you still want to use it. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Briese again

message: Jayjg has said that there is a small minority who oppose the idea of a link, but one must consider that if this small minority represents all the scholars who have read Luther in the original German and Latin, their views should be given the proper weight. CTS and myself along with, I would guess, Slim Virgin, are looking into this, taking the time to research. I would ask that there be mutual respect for one another along with placing the proper amount of weight on experts, who have "cut the mustard" in their fields. Drboisclair 18:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper weight should be placed on noted Luther scholars 

message: Frankly, I really don't see the difference between "Paul Johnson has called..." and "It is the opinion of Paul Johnson that..."  except that the latter sounds more wieldy.  Both are attributing the opinion as being that of Paul Johnson's, not Wikipedia's. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 19:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, but anything I might do to remedy that would be reverted. The allegation of "bad writing" is a violation of WP:CIVIL. Drboisclair 20:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I have reverted, since I believe that one has to point out that it was the man's opinion not what Wikipedia says. Drboisclair 20:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to try to show some basic standards of good writing. What you wrote was also POV. He wrote that X, or he called it X, or he argued X, or he alleged X, but not "it is the opinion of John Doe that X," although given that your usual thing is "John Doe opines ...," I suppose I should be grateful for small mercies. Stop changing my work. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the operative word here is "also"; hence, what you wrote is POV as well. Stop changing mine. Drboisclair 20:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't revert anymore since it is pointless: you will get your POV across. Drboisclair 21:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is NOT POV to say "X said Y" or "X called something Y." SlimVirgin (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "You have your will of me," quoth St. Thomas More. Drboisclair 21:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: (It takes me so long to write, there have been several comments before I have a chance to post this) Drboisclair, I removed your changes, because I do think the wording you're introducing adds nothing to content.  That particular edit has to do with style, not POV, so I'm not sure why the more succinct style warrants a POV tag.  Regardless, I do want to work with all to come to consensus on this article.  First, let me ask this foundational question.  Personal POVs aside, is it not established amongst all editors here that the majority POV held by most historians is that Martin Luther wrote antisemitic writings?  And that these writings were a major influence for the Nazis which led to the Holocaust?  The perspective of Lutheran pastors appears to be the only one with more of an apologetic view, and it would be appropriate to describe those views in detail in the Lutheran response section.  And in that section they can be described as feeling better qualified to assess Luther having read his writings more comprehensively (if that's what they say).  The intro already introduces the idea that Lutherans denounce the writings but that they don't believe Luther is an antisemite. Anyway, creating a separate section (or expanding the Lutheran response section) would be the best next step, imo. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 21:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr/Ms MPerel, I appreciate your work here. I do want to correct a point in the above post. Lutheran pastors do not engage in apologetics regarding Luther's works on the Jewish people. We are not writing an apologia here as has been above and elsewhere alleged. I welcome your work here insofar as I may do so with full knowledge that I do not "own this article." Drboisclair 21:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologetic wasn't intended as an insult, in case you interpreted it that way.  The apologetic I was referring to is the defense that "Luther isn't an antisemite because..." or "There is no link between Luther and the Nazis because..."  It appears (please show me otherwise if there are non-Lutheran clergy making this case) that this defense of Luther is really only expressed by Lutheran pastors (or perhaps Protestant clergy more generally).  That's why I suggested a separate section that explicitly expands on the details of this view. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Come to think of it to have such a section might be a good idea user:Slim Virgin has suggested this considering the tie-in with Lutheranism. It might not be a bad idea. To tell you the truth Luther's writings against Jewish people are an embarrassment to me as a Lutheran pastor. They are indefensible; however, I think that other matters must be taken into consideration. People should not be given a carte blanche on this website to say: "Luther was a 16th Century Hitler" one could just as well call Nicholas of Lyra or St. John Chrysostom "hitlers" of their centuries. What should be guarded is a fair appraisal of the life and work of historical figures. What people fail to realize is that Christians too have suffered at the hands of Hitler and the Nazis, Lutheran people, Roman Catholic people, even atheist and agnostic people. Drboisclair 22:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: FYI, I have added another Johnson's quotation (from the same page). ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paul Johnson's opinion

message: Mperel, a small thing, but I keep noticing you deleting the spaces before the numbered notes. There should be a space before the ref. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, sorry about that!  I didn't realize. Thanks for letting me know. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnotes

message: I think all of us can agree on one thing: we are dealing with emotionally difficult issues here, so (note to self) being calm and civilized is essential. I don't feel qualified to play an adult role here, but I have a lot of respect for most of you and I think it is important both for the project and for inter-communal reconciliation not to let this discussion deteriorate. For various reasons, I wasn't closely watching all the talks on these 3 pages lately (sometimes it seems like a full-time job). To resolve outstanding issues (OI, pronouced "oy"), may I offer a couple of suggestions:
#Is it possible to come up with a list of OIs? 
#Could we focus on content/topic and not on personalities/grievances, and not engage in talks leading nowhere? For example, I've seen a few attempts to compile quotes and credentials of the authors. If we need it, let's do it once; if not, let's stop trying. Also, scattering same discussions over various talk pages... 
#Another approach: perhaps we could define rules about arguments used in the dispute and then sort out the args? One attempt is here: #Inventory of Scholars on Antisemitism vs. Anti-Judaism, feel free to constructively contribute/criticize. Thank you all. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The points I feel are most destructive are the long, repetitive talk-page comments; and the posting of them on various article and user talk pages, so that keeping up does indeed feel like a full-time job. I would also ask that we use only good sources and that we fully describe who they are in the articles and when we discuss them on talk, so that people don't have to keep asking about their experience or qualifications. Finally I ask again that everyone edits in accordance with the policies. That means not inserting our own opinions or trying to get the article to conform to our own  opinions. We are here to reflect the majority view first, and secondly the significant-minority views of reliable published sources. We are not here to reflect tiny-minority views or the personal views of editors. If we could all keep talk posts to the point and few in number; properly cite good sources, and stick rigidly to the policies, I feel the disputes would end. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well stated, both of you.  If all heed this advice we'll make much progress.  --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 01:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consolidating outstanding issues 

message: I removed the neutrality flag because there's been no neutrality related discussions this month.  That has now been reverted.  I don't think it's very useful to put up a neutrality flag without telling us the substance of your claim.  So what is it?Doright 04:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   neutrality flag removal 

message: This section doesn't really belong in this article, since the subject of the article is specifically about Martin Luther and the Jews, not Lutherans and the Jews or Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the Jews.  As it's currently an empty section anyway, I'm removing it.  --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 07:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also Bonhoeffer was part of a German resistance movement, nothing specifically Lutheran about it or by anything particularly marked by Luther.  That's why it's veering off topic.  --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 07:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. --CTSWyneken 10:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Lutheran Resistance to Nazism

message: Dear Slim: Since you have asked repeatedly that others not delete material added without discussion, you should offer the same courtesy to others, especially new users. Perhaps you might drop by PTMccain's page and try to enage him on the subject, suggest a comprimise, like integrating the material into the existing paragraphs or argue why this should not be done. --CTSWyneken 13:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was objecting to his vandalism, as you should have done. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting the Material Added by a New User 

message: You've done a good job cleaning all this up. I'm glad to see you've joined us here. --CTSWyneken 19:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I'll do more in a bit. Thought I'd hit the noncontroversial stuff first : ) --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice work, MPercel! 

message: As documented and deleted from the Luther articles many times Luther's hatred of Jews was ingrained at a very early age.  He went to school as a boy in a town famous for its antisemitism,  Magdeburg.  I provide some info related to the town here. 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 
Luther also 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."
It was this sort of misconduct, of which that is only a tiny fraction, that led me to the obvious conclusion that the creation of an article for On the Jews and Their Lies was essential to stem the whitewashing of Luther’s and certain others vicious antisemites  and the impact they’ve had on attempts at genocide and other aspects of world history.
Please note, I provided some of the reverters this info (to which I received no reply):
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."
::One trembles for your reply to the query: "Why don't you go on a spree of 'telling the truth' on them?" That is because you do deal in truth, half-truth that is. Drboisclair 23:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr. Doright, Luther attended school in Magdeburg only for one or two years when he was a teenager. He grew up in Mansfeld, and went to school there and in Erfurt for longer periods of time. Your revisionism is phenomenal. What is really tragic in all of this is that persons like you polarize people into opposing camps. Learn to build bridges instead of pouring the petrol on the fire. Drboisclair 23:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hatred of Jewish Race and When Did it Start

message: Moving this controversial quote again: "Australian Lutheran pastor Russell Briese's comments at the Council of Christians and Jews at the Great Synagogue in Sydney: "historians are at a loss to find a direct link between the anti-semitism of Luther's time and that of Hitler's campaign." (Russell Briese, "Martin Luther and the Jews," Lutheran Forum 34 (2000) No. 2:30.)
There has to be a better quote than this somewhere. Briese is almost certainly being quoted out of context, and if you  have any respect for him, CTWS, you won't restore this quote, because it makes him look ill-informed. Please provide a couple of sentences before and after the quote so we can check the context. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, CTSW, could you answer the question I left you on the other page, about Michael's paper? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree it sounds quite damning, if it actually represents what Lutheran scholars think, that they see no link between Luther and the Holocaust; that would be too much blind denial.  Surely a better representative response exists.  Let's try to find something better.  --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The other article quotes Lutheran scholars who agree there's a link, so I'd be surprised if that's actually what Briese said, or intended to say. Seeing some context might shed light on it. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  If you'd like, I can provide this essay for you or help you get a copy. --CTSWyneken 11:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be helpful if it's no trouble, or else perhaps you could just supply the sentence or so surrounding that quote, if you still want to use it. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Briese again

message: Jayjg has said that there is a small minority who oppose the idea of a link, but one must consider that if this small minority represents all the scholars who have read Luther in the original German and Latin, their views should be given the proper weight. CTS and myself along with, I would guess, Slim Virgin, are looking into this, taking the time to research. I would ask that there be mutual respect for one another along with placing the proper amount of weight on experts, who have "cut the mustard" in their fields. Drboisclair 18:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper weight should be placed on noted Luther scholars 

message: Frankly, I really don't see the difference between "Paul Johnson has called..." and "It is the opinion of Paul Johnson that..."  except that the latter sounds more wieldy.  Both are attributing the opinion as being that of Paul Johnson's, not Wikipedia's. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 19:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, but anything I might do to remedy that would be reverted. The allegation of "bad writing" is a violation of WP:CIVIL. Drboisclair 20:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I have reverted, since I believe that one has to point out that it was the man's opinion not what Wikipedia says. Drboisclair 20:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to try to show some basic standards of good writing. What you wrote was also POV. He wrote that X, or he called it X, or he argued X, or he alleged X, but not "it is the opinion of John Doe that X," although given that your usual thing is "John Doe opines ...," I suppose I should be grateful for small mercies. Stop changing my work. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the operative word here is "also"; hence, what you wrote is POV as well. Stop changing mine. Drboisclair 20:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't revert anymore since it is pointless: you will get your POV across. Drboisclair 21:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is NOT POV to say "X said Y" or "X called something Y." SlimVirgin (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "You have your will of me," quoth St. Thomas More. Drboisclair 21:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: (It takes me so long to write, there have been several comments before I have a chance to post this) Drboisclair, I removed your changes, because I do think the wording you're introducing adds nothing to content.  That particular edit has to do with style, not POV, so I'm not sure why the more succinct style warrants a POV tag.  Regardless, I do want to work with all to come to consensus on this article.  First, let me ask this foundational question.  Personal POVs aside, is it not established amongst all editors here that the majority POV held by most historians is that Martin Luther wrote antisemitic writings?  And that these writings were a major influence for the Nazis which led to the Holocaust?  The perspective of Lutheran pastors appears to be the only one with more of an apologetic view, and it would be appropriate to describe those views in detail in the Lutheran response section.  And in that section they can be described as feeling better qualified to assess Luther having read his writings more comprehensively (if that's what they say).  The intro already introduces the idea that Lutherans denounce the writings but that they don't believe Luther is an antisemite. Anyway, creating a separate section (or expanding the Lutheran response section) would be the best next step, imo. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 21:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr/Ms MPerel, I appreciate your work here. I do want to correct a point in the above post. Lutheran pastors do not engage in apologetics regarding Luther's works on the Jewish people. We are not writing an apologia here as has been above and elsewhere alleged. I welcome your work here insofar as I may do so with full knowledge that I do not "own this article." Drboisclair 21:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologetic wasn't intended as an insult, in case you interpreted it that way.  The apologetic I was referring to is the defense that "Luther isn't an antisemite because..." or "There is no link between Luther and the Nazis because..."  It appears (please show me otherwise if there are non-Lutheran clergy making this case) that this defense of Luther is really only expressed by Lutheran pastors (or perhaps Protestant clergy more generally).  That's why I suggested a separate section that explicitly expands on the details of this view. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Come to think of it to have such a section might be a good idea user:Slim Virgin has suggested this considering the tie-in with Lutheranism. It might not be a bad idea. To tell you the truth Luther's writings against Jewish people are an embarrassment to me as a Lutheran pastor. They are indefensible; however, I think that other matters must be taken into consideration. People should not be given a carte blanche on this website to say: "Luther was a 16th Century Hitler" one could just as well call Nicholas of Lyra or St. John Chrysostom "hitlers" of their centuries. What should be guarded is a fair appraisal of the life and work of historical figures. What people fail to realize is that Christians too have suffered at the hands of Hitler and the Nazis, Lutheran people, Roman Catholic people, even atheist and agnostic people. Drboisclair 22:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: FYI, I have added another Johnson's quotation (from the same page). ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paul Johnson's opinion

message: Mperel, a small thing, but I keep noticing you deleting the spaces before the numbered notes. There should be a space before the ref. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, sorry about that!  I didn't realize. Thanks for letting me know. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnotes

message: I think all of us can agree on one thing: we are dealing with emotionally difficult issues here, so (note to self) being calm and civilized is essential. I don't feel qualified to play an adult role here, but I have a lot of respect for most of you and I think it is important both for the project and for inter-communal reconciliation not to let this discussion deteriorate. For various reasons, I wasn't closely watching all the talks on these 3 pages lately (sometimes it seems like a full-time job). To resolve outstanding issues (OI, pronouced "oy"), may I offer a couple of suggestions:
#Is it possible to come up with a list of OIs? 
#Could we focus on content/topic and not on personalities/grievances, and not engage in talks leading nowhere? For example, I've seen a few attempts to compile quotes and credentials of the authors. If we need it, let's do it once; if not, let's stop trying. Also, scattering same discussions over various talk pages... 
#Another approach: perhaps we could define rules about arguments used in the dispute and then sort out the args? One attempt is here: #Inventory of Scholars on Antisemitism vs. Anti-Judaism, feel free to constructively contribute/criticize. Thank you all. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The points I feel are most destructive are the long, repetitive talk-page comments; and the posting of them on various article and user talk pages, so that keeping up does indeed feel like a full-time job. I would also ask that we use only good sources and that we fully describe who they are in the articles and when we discuss them on talk, so that people don't have to keep asking about their experience or qualifications. Finally I ask again that everyone edits in accordance with the policies. That means not inserting our own opinions or trying to get the article to conform to our own  opinions. We are here to reflect the majority view first, and secondly the significant-minority views of reliable published sources. We are not here to reflect tiny-minority views or the personal views of editors. If we could all keep talk posts to the point and few in number; properly cite good sources, and stick rigidly to the policies, I feel the disputes would end. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well stated, both of you.  If all heed this advice we'll make much progress.  --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 01:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consolidating outstanding issues 

message: I removed the neutrality flag because there's been no neutrality related discussions this month.  That has now been reverted.  I don't think it's very useful to put up a neutrality flag without telling us the substance of your claim.  So what is it?Doright 04:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   neutrality flag removal 

message: This section doesn't really belong in this article, since the subject of the article is specifically about Martin Luther and the Jews, not Lutherans and the Jews or Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the Jews.  As it's currently an empty section anyway, I'm removing it.  --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 07:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also Bonhoeffer was part of a German resistance movement, nothing specifically Lutheran about it or by anything particularly marked by Luther.  That's why it's veering off topic.  --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 07:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. --CTSWyneken 10:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Lutheran Resistance to Nazism

message: It appears that user Doright does not like my archiving this page. Would someone do it for me? The material here now duplicates Archive 3. --CTSWyneken 03:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would Someone Archive this Page? 

message: CTSWyneken, what is the point of blanking the talk page?  CTSWyneken, feel free to delete archive 3 since it duplicated this page.Doright 03:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please do no blank the talk page

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: Dear Friends: the text on WP:RS that refers to Electronic mailing lists as legitimate sources has been removed, the editor arguing that such are self-published and against guidelines. Please removed all citations to such sources and the quotations they support. I recommend commenting them out until the debate on the guideline's removal is resolved. --CTSWyneken 02:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, please don't do that. If this is about the use of Robert Michael, he is clearly allowed under WP:RS as it stood, without the need for a special section about mailing lists. He is a well-known professional researcher writing within his field of expertise. Self-published material within his field of expertise is therefore allowed, although it should be used sparingly and with caution. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I beg to differ. The source is a mailing list archive. You are arguing at WP:RS that mailing lists are self-published. As the rules stand, I do not see why we should make exceptions in the rules for eminent scholars. In fact, you argued for the removal of a Myers quote earlier on one of the Luther pages for this very reason. I happen to think that good lists are legitimate sources, but should be used sparingly. But rules are rules. So why not say such on WP:RS? --CTSWyneken 12:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is there to beg to differ over exactly? The rules as they stand are clear. Exceptions are made for well-known researchers writing within their areas of expertise. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Email list archives

message: Drboisclair, you place the tag on April 26.   [].  Do you still want it on there? --Doright 07:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hasn't it been removed and replaced since then by someone else? I think that it can be removed. What do you think?--Drboisclair 08:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drboisclair's POV tag 

message: I removed this paragraph:
:Marttin Luther claimed that Jews are constrained to fulfill prophecies and can only change through God's action.[citation needed] In the view of some theologians this contradicts the doctrine of Free will. There is no reason to assume that Jews have less free will than other human beings. Martin Luther failed to recognize this.[citation needed]
However, since it has been returned, perhaps we can work with it. "There is no reason to assume that Jews have less free will than other human beings" is problematic. Even though it might be thought by most people to be self-evident, it is philosophical POV. I would move that this paragraph be removed unless the user can show good cause along with sourcing why it should be retained.--Drboisclair 16:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree. It may be correct but it smacks of OR. I think it  should go if it can't be sourced.--Mantanmoreland 17:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic sentence 

message: Has there been discussion about whether the ML time line is really necessary in this article? My first impression is it not necessary here ... Keesiewonder 02:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes. It is important that people know where they are in Luther's life as they read, since his earlier words and attitudes were relatively kind and the later ones hate and venom-filled. Also, the timeline fills up ugly empty space alongside of Wikipedia-style TOCs. --CTSWyneken(talk) 02:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is timeline needed in this article? 

message: The section on Martin Luther's "Schem Hamephoras" contains very little information.  Here is some revealing text that Martin Luther wrote:
"When Judas hanged himself and his bowels gushed forth, and, as happens in such cases, his bladder also burst, the Jews were ready to catch the Judas-water and the other precious things, and then they gorged and swilled on the merd among themselves, and were thereby endowed with such a keenness of sight that they can perceive glosses in the Scriptures such as neither Matthew nor Isaiah himself . . .would be able to detect; or perhaps they looked into the loin of their God “Shed,” and found these things written in that smokehole. . . .
The Devil has eased himself and emptied his belly again—that is a real halidom for Jews and would-be Jews, to kiss, batten on, swill and adore; and then the Devil in his turn also devours and swills what these good pupils spue and eject from above and below. . . . 
The Devil, with his angelic snout, devours what exudes from the oral and anal apertures of the Jews; this is indeed his favorite dish, on which he battens like a sow behind the hedge. . . ".  Should this be added to the article?  Repentance 19:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's fine, as long as it is well documented. Edwards sees it as a continuation of On the Jews and Their Lies. There are also texts in which Luther defends the Jews prior to the 1530s. --CTSWyneken(talk) 15:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Schem Hamephoras

message: I've noticed that the Category:Christian and Jewish interfaith topics includes this article which feels appropriate. The same category includes the  sub Category:Jews for Jesus (a virtually unused category including one article). "Jews for Jesus," as I understand it, does not feel like an appropriate interfaith topic to me ... interfaith, as I've understood it, does not include goals of evangelism or conversion ... Thoughts? Keesiewonder 02:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category confusion?