Talk:Martin Luther and the Jews

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Lutheranism Martin Luther and the Jews is part of WikiProject Lutheranism, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Lutheranism on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to Lutheran churches, Lutheran theology and worship, and biographies of notable Lutherans. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Peer review This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

Contents

[edit] Deleting the Material Added by a New User

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)

I was objecting to his vandalism, as you should have done. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nice work, MPercel!

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)

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)

[edit] Citation

Could we have a citation the sentence claiming that he only became opposed to the Jews when he failed to convert them, because it sounds contradictory: if he had not been opposed to them, he wouldn't have been trying to convert them. "Luther had expected that presenting his understanding of the Christian gospel to the Jews would convert them, but when his efforts failed, he became embittered and recommended their harsh persecution."

Also, we need a citation for the sentence that says the Lutheran movement has began formally to dissociate itself from his writings. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll work on the former when time permits, hopefully by week's end.
Are the citations at the bottom of the good enough? We could combine all the citations into one note at the end of that note. Perhaps slrubenstein can help. He did much work on that section. --CTSWyneken 20:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, not sure what you mean. At the bottom of what? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see what he means now, the declarations and citations are given in the bottom paragraph here. Probably that statement can go back in. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 23:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok I went ahead and added the statement back in with the citations from the bottom paragraph. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 23:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

"Since the 1980s, Lutheran church bodies and organizations have begun a process of formally disassociating themselves from these writings." SlimVirgin (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

There's this statement, though it probably would be better to directly link to the denomination's declaration, if it exists online at their own site. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Here it is at a more direct link. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 23:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that, Miri. I'm not sure I agree that they're "formally disassociating" themselves. They use weasel words like "anti-Judaic" and imply or state that it isn't anti-Semitism, and they "deplore the appropriation" of the material, as though the material was not Luther's responsibility, of that of the Lutheran movement. I'm fine with including it (though probably not in the intro because this article isn't about the Lutheran church), but if we do, we should quote what they say, rather than paraphrasing it in a way that might not be accurate, and a quote might make it too long for the intro. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree, it should be reworded to more accurately reflect what they say. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 00:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I just took a hack at it, but see what you can do if there's a better way to state their views. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 00:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
You've done a great job, Mperel, with the intro, finding sources, and tidying the references. Thank you for working so hard on it! SlimVirgin (talk) 11:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
There is something we can all agree on. In American slang: "Good job! Good JOB!" In Australian: "Fair Dinkum!" --CTSWyneken 11:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hatred of Jewish Race and When Did it Start

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)

“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.” Yours truly in Wikipedia-Doright 23:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

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)


See [[1]] for Luther race quotes.Doright 04:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Briese again

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)

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)
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)
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)
If you'd like, I can provide this essay for you or help you get a copy. --CTSWyneken 11:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
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)

[edit] British Luther scholar, Gordon Rupp

CTSW, you've now inserted the following statement into the introduction:

British Luther scholar, Gordon Rupp disagrees. "There is no trace of such a relation between Luther and Hitler. I suppose Hitler never once read a page by Luther.".

I guess this is an attempt to "balance" the introduction, but it seems a rather bizarre way of doing so. The statement is not about Luther and the Jews (the topic of this article), nor is it about his most infamous work On the Jews and their Lies, nor does it address the previous statement that the pamplet was "the first work of Modern anti-Semitism". Instead it introduces an entirely new topic (Hitler), and consists of Rupp supposing that Hitler never read Luther's works. It is a completely incongruous insertion of an unrelated and non-encyclopedic claim; for the sake of the article and Wikipedia's reputation I strongly recommend you delete it immediately, and instead engage in a search for a relevant and scholarly statement from a reputable source. Jayjg (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jay: I would much prefer the Briese quote, which goes to the issue of this article. But SlimVirgin does not like it. I have gone on a search for one that will satisfy everyone, but patience is needed in this case. I see she is willing to allow for me to send her more of the context in Briese, so I will do that. Again, please be patient. All of this takes time.
As far as it goes, Johnson's quote is strictly not on topic here either. Perhaps a better one can be found.
As far as Rupp goes, he is a well respected scholar of Luther and this is an oft-quoted work on the subject of Luther and the Jews. So, it is a reputable source and a scholarly one at that.
So, what do you all want me to do? Briese? I'm raked over the coals for using it. Delete Johnson? Ditto. Rupp? Same thing. Please give me a bit of a break here. --CTSWyneken 16:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The quote is obviously not a good one. Who is Rupp to guess whether Hitler read Luther? And how can you say that Johnson isn't on topic? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Rupp is a renown Luther scholar now deceased, I believe. His statement here is rhetorical. The meaning would be: the way Hitler and his associates used Luther and his writings, one would think that he/they had never read anything Luther wrote. Rupp is saying that the Nazis were misusing Luther. Something to consider here: Johnson is not a Luther expert. Rupp is. Perhaps Rupp has written something more definitive on this. G. Gordon Rupp was very critical of Luther as is Martin Brecht. These men are experts on Luther. They have read what he wrote "all the way through" as my professor Dr. Norman Nagel told us. Drboisclair 17:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

CTSW, the problem with Briese has already been discussed above. He's a Lutheran pastor, not a historian, he's not an expert in the field, his quote is quite possibly taken out of context, and in any event makes him looks silly (or willfully blind), as he states that historians cannot find a link, then we quote a historian who finds a link (and there are many others who do as well). Johnson is a popular historian with many well-received works to his credit, and he is talking about the most significant impact of Luther's most significant work about Jews. I think you need to face the fact that the historical consensus is that Luther's work was both anti-Semitic, and helped contribute to the Holocaust in some way. True, apologetic authors try to distinguish between various types of anti-Semitism ("racial" vs. "religious"), or state that Luther's work was in some way abused or misused by the Nazis for their own nefarious ends, but even they recognize both the anti-Semitic nature of the work, and its use by the Nazis. The introduction should reflect historical consensus; trying to "balance" it by bringing an a-historical opinion that represents neither historical consensus nor (often) the opinion of the person in whose name it is brought, is simply wrong, and should not be done. The introduction to the Hitler article states "Hitler's racial policies had culminated in the genocide of 11 million people, including about six million Jews, in what is now known as The Holocaust." We cannot "balance" it by saying "However, Holocaust deniers insist that Hitler gave no orders to kill Jews, was unaware that Jews were being mistreated, and in any event dispute that millions, or even hundreds of thousands, were killed". There is a limit to apologetics, and in my opinion you are overstepping that limit. Jayjg (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

However the risk of having this article non NPOV is run here. CTS is concerned with balance here. We are not engaged in apologetics or whitewash. We want the article to be NPOV, which I am led to believe is what Wikipedia is all about. Drboisclair 17:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
But are you aware that NPOV means to represent the majority view and to make clear that it's the majority view, and then to represent significant minority views, but not as though they are equal to the majority one? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Right. And in addition, extreme minority opinions are not presented at all. The idea that Luther's work had no impact at all on the Nazis would seem to fall into that category. Jayjg (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. I took a look last night as a matter of interest at the books I have here about Hitler, the Nazis, the Holocaust. Without exception, the link to Luther is mentioned. And in the material about Luther that I've been reading, it's the same: the link is always mentioned. That is why Briese's view seems so incongruent, so much so that it really can't go in the intro. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I understand this, but there are a number of concerns here 1) even the scholars on one side of the issues are few in number, and they are general historians, they seem to be a bit overused as one can see the multiple of "a,b,c" internal links in the footnotes, 2) just because there is a majority on something does not mean that they are right, 3) it also should be pointed out that this is "in the opinion" of this or that scholar. "It is Johnson's opinion that" or "Robert Michael opines that." One has their opinion, so then one must put in the opinion of another person on this view. As it stands now it looks like Wikipedia is supporting the opinions of some over those of others. I have a few more concerns here. These matters were thrashed through 5 months ago. Why is all of the time and effort expended then being trashed? As to the Briese quote, yes, it is one man's opinion, and I would not be adverse to omitting it.Drboisclair 18:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps Slim Virgin would like to share these quotations with us about the link between Luther's writings and the Nazis. Perhaps we should get to see this quiet majority. We all serve the same goal of fairness and NPOV. Drboisclair 18:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
(two edit conflicts) I've deleted the Rupp quote because it really does the intro a disservice to have someone guessing what Hitler read, especially someone who wasn't a specialist on Hitler. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I must admit that I'm starting to lose patience with this endless talk. The policies are clear. We are not here to judge who is right. We are here to represent the majority view and to make clear that it is the majority view; and then to represent the significant-minority views, and to make clear that they are minority views. Then we source everything to show that we're repeating the views of other published authors, and not our own views. That's it. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
If you are losing patience with this process maybe you should take a break from it. Right now there are the opinions of two or three general historians, eminent, no doubt, but just three. Your statement: "Then we source everything to show that we're repeating the views of other published authors, and not our own views." This statement should apply to all I would agree. As to the introduction, IMHO, it should be general touching on the data that is to be presented. Drboisclair 18:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
In fact, that is what you are not doing. You've just deleted the opinion of respected authors, this one now being the second. As I said earlier, Briese is a historian. His dissertation required his reading of almost all Luther wrote. This makes him as much an expert as is Johnson. Before you jump to context conclusions, allow me the time in the busy day to find and provide it for you.
The point these scholars are trying to make is there is no causal relationship between Luther's comments and the Holocaust. This is no fringe viewpoint, though it is likely a minority one. I will keep examining the literature and will extract even more quotations to show this. We will go a long way to both good articles and peace if this can be written without our articles taking side on this issue. We were there, I believe. So, why is so difficult for you to allow these quotes to stand? --CTSWyneken 18:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
This is what you did the last time. It's a war of attrition. You talk and talk and talk and talk until people get fed up and either cave in or go away. It isn't going to work this time. I'm not going to keep on discussing it, but I am going to keep on editing. If you have anything new to say, I will respond. If it's the same old, same old, I won't. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The same can be said in reverse, Slim. --CTSWyneken 18:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proper weight should be placed on noted Luther scholars

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)

[edit] Paul Johnson's opinion

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
I won't revert anymore since it is pointless: you will get your POV across. Drboisclair 21:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
It is NOT POV to say "X said Y" or "X called something Y." SlimVirgin (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
"You have your will of me," quoth St. Thomas More. Drboisclair 21:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
(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)
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)
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)
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)

When an article states that so-and-so calls X "Y", it is obviously so-and-so's opinion. If we had to introduce every cited statement with the unwieldy introduction "it is the opinion of so-and-so" articles would be impossible to read. We should aim for brevity and concision where possible. Also, introducing Johnson as a "journalist" as well as a historian is superfluous at best, well poisoning at worst. It was in his capacity as a best-selling historian that Johnson made that statement, not as a journalist in a newspaper article. Jayjg (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Michael and Luther Advocating Murder

(Copied from Talk:Martin Luther)

I have a question about our text, which says: "He also sanctioned their murder." It cites Robert Michael's essay. p. 343, where Dr. Michael says: "Perhaps more damaging to Luther's reputation, however, was his apparent sanctioning of murder."

I am curious about this since:

Martin Brecht, Martin Luther tr. James Schaaf. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993, 3:341-346, Brecht spends five pages summarizing and analyzing On the Jews He does not mention the passage from On the Jews now quoted in the article. He does, however, say: "What Luther really intended was the expulsion of the Jews, not their deaths." (p. 344)

Gordon Rupp expresses similar sentiments in 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?" (p. 76)

"Luther was not recommending personal violence." (pp. 78-79).

"It all falls very far short of the Nazi anti-semitism with its doctrine of Race, with its mass extermination." (p. 79)

Graham Noble adds in his article: "Martin Luther and German Anti-Semitism." History Review (2002) no. 42:1-2.

No matter that [Luther] sought, in his own terms, to save the Jews not to exterminate them, that he had no notion of the pseudo-scientific eugenics which underpinned Nazi anti-Semitism, or that he depreciated physical violence against them -- Martin Luther offered in his writings a historical and intellectual justification for the Holocaust, which the Nazis took pains to exploit." p. 2.

Does anyone know of another scholar that claims Luther actually advocated the murder of Jews? --CTSWyneken 18:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Robert Michael, as you know very well. Luther himself, as you know very well. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Please note I've accounted for him above. Do you know of any others? --CTSWyneken 19:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
If you know the edit is sourced to an academic source, why are you questioning it? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Because at least three scholarly sources say the opposite. My question, and that's all it is, is are there others that support Dr. Michael's view? --CTSWyneken 20:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Who are the three scholarly sources, and can you cite their exact current academic positions, or if they've passed away, the last academic position they held? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll work on it. Of course, I'd still like an answer to my question. --CTSWyneken 20:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Why are you asking it here, given that this article doesn't mention it? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Also note that it was Mperel who changed my edit from "appeared to sanctioned," to "sanctioned." I prefer the former and will probably change it. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
My apologies. I meant to be on the Luther page. It has relevance here, but it is better on the Luther page, where the words are in the article. It's what I get for trying to multitask. Did you want me to move it there?
And, thanks for the note. I'm still interested in knowing if another scholar supports that viewpoint. It's a conflict that puzzles me. --CTSWyneken 21:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Wait a sec. It is here too. Did you want to have this discussion in both places or just one? --CTSWyneken 21:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'm the one who changed "appeared to sanction" to "sanctioned" because he did actually explicitly sanction it, though the quote in the article isn't as direct as the one I had in mind. There are other quotes where Luther explictly sanctions it though like "If I had to baptize a Jew, I would take him to the bridge of Elbe, hang a stone round his neck and push him over with the words, 'I baptize thee in the name of Abraham.' We ought to take revenge on the Jews and kill them." (Peter F. Weiner, Table Talk, p. 61-62). I had that in my personal notes, but I hadn't yet verified the source. If Slim and others prefer "appeared to sanction", I'll live with it. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Sanctioned is good so long as we can clearly source it as very direct. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll try to verify the source I had on it. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't go to any trouble, Miri. It's fine as it is with Michael. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes

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)

Ah, sorry about that! I didn't realize. Thanks for letting me know. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questions about latest edit

(copied from User talk:Humus sapiens)

Dear Humus:

Good to see you back at this page. A few observerations on the material you just added.

1 -- The first sentence covers material earlier on in the essay. Could you move it there? 2 -- At least one editor (not me) has expressed that he thinks we have too many quotations. Would you be willing to summarize the material? We would, of course, leave the reference. 3 -- I think details of which territories enacted anti-Jewish laws or enforced them would be useful here. Does Johnson give any cited detail?

If you feel detail is still missing on this aspect, I'll do a little more work here.

I am trying to fade back a bit. I do not like my personal integrity constantly assaulted and scholar disparaged. This tends to get me angry, which is not a good mood to be in when trying to edit topics like this one. I've gone to your talk page because even my most simple posts generates too much emotion there.

So, if you come to wonder why I'm not as quick as usual, that's it. --CTSWyneken 10:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

As you're discussing the article here, I'll leave my response here. The first sentence is fine where it is. The quotation is fine too. And so far as I know, Johnson doesn't give details of the various territories, beyond what's already on the page. Hope that's enough. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Dear Slim: this is here because I'm trying to work with Humus. I'm not going to debate it with you. He will do whatever he wishes. I respect him and are likely to let it go at that. So, please, would you stay out of this conversation? --CTSWyneken 11:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
No, I will not stay out of this conversation. This is a wiki. I'm responding because this is your usual modus operandi. Humus makes an edit, a good one, but within minutes, a post from you with instructions and questions, and could he look for more, please, and "does Johnson happen to mention whether ...", and now Humus is probably wishing he hadn't bothered. You have to stop this. No one likes it. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Humus, no, I do not need the pages themselves. I trust you there. I may well have this one on the shelf at the library, in any case. I think it was JPGordon who was wondering about the quotation frequency. It doesn't bother me either way. The reason for my wishing to move the first sentence is that it helps the chronology of the events leading up to Luther's tirade. Where it is now it amounts to a flash back. --CTSWyneken 11:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's my two cents: why don't you take it to the relevant talk page? Don't the rest of the contributors get a say? If Humus cares enough about his edit, he'll go and argue with you there. As it is, you're personalising the debate over the content of a specific article way too much. --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
First of all, I do not like conversations between parties on user talk pages posted in the open without permission of all parties. It distorts what's going on.
Second, the talk page conversation is not a debate about the contribution. It is a discussion between Humus and I. We get on quite well, even though we do not always come out in the same place on every issue. It is apparent that here my integrity will always be questioned, every word challanged, scholars belittled when they are not in keeping with an editor's view. This makes me angry, frankly, and I'm attempting to find ways of getting things done and thus keeping my part of the debate less emotion-filled. It seems as if other editors are not interested in this.
How does, by the way, having a discussion in the corner of the wiki first, stop others from having a say? It seems this talk page is ample testimony that anyone at any time can quuestion anything.
NOw, if you will excuse me, I will go on to other things. This is the last I will say about this -- or any other -- user talk page discussion I'm having. --CTSWyneken 13:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consolidating outstanding issues

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:

  1. Is it possible to come up with a list of OIs?
  2. 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...
  3. 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)
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)
Well stated, both of you. If all heed this advice we'll make much progress. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 01:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CTSWyneken

Don't use Usenet posts as sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, could you please stop capitalizing words at random e.g. German Historian? Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I removed this because it's sourced to a discussion group. Please re-source it. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Texas A&M Professor of English and Religious Studies D. G. Meyers wrote:
"On the Jews and Their Lies goes beyond theological anti-Judaism; it calls for state-sponsored violence against the Jews; and therefore it contributed to a historical climate of German opinion in which genocide was conceivable." (D. G. Myers, ""Luther's antisemitism, IV", H-Net Discussions Networks, February 18, 1998.)
It's fine by me if you wish to remove it. Doright contributed this one. All I did was fix the citation.
I helped found H-Antisemitism a decade ago. It is an edited list--every posting has to be approved by its editors, who include the leading scholars in the field. Rjensen 23:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC) (copied from [here] by Doright 00:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
By the way, can you verify the Rapport quote? It's another Doright addition I have been unable to find. No library seems to have a subscription. My guess is its from a newsletter. --CTSWyneken 23:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sister article On the Jews and Their Lies (excerpts) nominated for deletion

(copied from Talk:On the Jews and Their Lies (Martin Luther))

The "sister article" named in the caption above has been nominated for deletion. Please lend your input [2].

[edit] neutrality flag removal

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)

[edit] Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Lutheran Resistance to Nazism

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)

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)
Agreed. --CTSWyneken 10:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Would Someone Archive this Page?

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)

[edit] Please do no blank the talk page

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)

[edit] New subpage: Talk:Martin Luther and the Jews/Religious or Racial Antisemitism

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)

[edit] Email list archives

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)

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)
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)
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)

CTSWyneken, Do not WP:DISRUPT Wikipedia to make a point and please read WP:RS and WP:V. Please cease your violation of formal and explicit Wikipedia policy.

You continue to push your POV by stating: “I do not see why we should make exceptions in the rules for eminent scholars.” However, both RS and V explicitly provide for exactly this exception. They both state: "Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise . . ." [[3]] [[4]].

Please do not violate WP:RS and WP:V and WP:NPOV by attempting to enforce your own policy. If you want to change WP policy on the matter of exceptions, please follow the normal procedures for implementing a policy change. In this case, I would suggest that you go to the WP:V page and discuss your reasoning for implementing a change to official policy. This article page is not the place to do it.

--Doright 19:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who is a Historian?

I'm at a loss as to how people do not see Uwe Siemon-Netto as a historian, given our own article's definition. His Ph. D. dissertation required him to study the life and thought of Martin Luther at Boston University. He has published a book that discusses Martin Luther's --CTSWyneken 21:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)polemics, especially against the Jews, his theology of the relationship between the Church and the State and many other historical issues. If he is not a historian, who is? --CTSWyneken 11:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

If he were a historian, our article on him might mention that. It doesn't. If he were a historian, his degrees might be in history rather than in theology or sociology of religion. They aren't. - Nunh-huh 14:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
By that logic, Paul Johnson (journalist) is not a historian. Also by that logic, Robert Michael should not be quoted because his degree in not in reformation studies. Siemon-Netto is a historian because he has studied history as a part of his degree and his dissertation and has published a work that deals exactly with the issue at hand.
IMHO, All three are historians. But if you want to delete that term from his description, then it must go from Johnson, who must also be described as a journalist. It also must be made clear that Michael's expertise is Holocaust Studies. It must be made clear that Siemon-Netto is an expert in the area of Luther's relationship to the Jews. Or perhaps all descriptive phrases concerning the scholars at hand must be removed.
But the question remains, what, then, is a historian? What about: "someone who has a doctorate in a historical subject or has published a work to academic standards." --CTSWyneken 16:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
How about "someone who has a doctorate in a historical subject or makes his living as a historian." I think describing someone who is primarily a journalist (or a theologian) as a historian just because he's written a book dealing with history is not really helpful to the reader. - Nunh-huh 17:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
His doctorate is in a historical subject. It is about Luther's theology and his attitude towards the Jews. Last I checked, Luther was history. 8-) Seriously, my objection to the current characterization is it suggests he doesn't know what he's talking about. In fact, he does. It would be just as misleading to say the Robert Michael doesn't know what he's talking about because he's only examined one aspect of Luther's work. In fact, he does, too. --CTSWyneken 18:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I suspect nearly every doctoral dissertation involves history of one sort or another. If a degree is actually in history, it will be designated so. I don't get the same feeling from the current description as you do, but I suppose we all bring different things to it. I think it's helpful and reasonable to point out that Siemon-Netto's a Lutheran theologian. Whether that connotes conflict-of-interest or expertise is left as an exercise for the reader :) (I'm not sure that "veteran" adds much to the description, though). - Nunh-huh 18:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
CTS, he's a journalist who did a degree in theology. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Slim, his Ph.D. is technically in sociology. See Christianity Today (April 2005), not theology. The work involved much historical research, which, having to undergo the review of a doctoral committee, is the best historical research available. His main occupations are in theology and journalism, but that does not make him any less a historian. If you do not agree, if a person must be a full time theologian by your standards, then Paul Johnson is no historian. He has no graduate degree in history or a doctorate of any kind. If a person's work is irrelvant, than his popular histories are irrelevant, too. --CTSWyneken 20:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
He doesn't make a living out of writing or teaching history, and he doesn't have any qualifications in it. He's not an historian by any standard. Why do you want him to be? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
CTSWyneken, there's no comparison. Dr. Robert Michael is Professor Emeritus of European History at the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth. He has published more than 50 articles and eleven books on the Holocaust and the history of Antisemitism. In 1997 he received the American Historical Associations James Harvey Robinson Prize for the most outstanding contribution to the teaching and learning of history. Michael's expertise is "the history of Antisemitism." The Holocaust and Martin Luther are part of that history and part of European History. Again, please note that Dr. Michael is Professor Emeritus of European History. --Doright 20:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Doright, you've missed the point. I'm saying all these men are historians. Any one who has published well-documented history (Johnson, Michael, Shirer, Siemon-Netto), has written a doctoral dissertation based on historical research (Michael, Siemon-Netto) or is recognized by the scholarly community as a historian (Johnson, Michael, Shirer, Siemon-Netto) are historians.
I'm arguing that the same standard should be applied to all. If this is not the standard, then Johnson and Shirer should be called journalists as well as Siemon-Netto and Michael's expertise defined. (He is not primarily a Luther scholar or even an early modern or reformation scholar) It is POV to subtly try to sway readers to one qualified scholar or another by the language used. --CTSWyneken 20:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Robert Michael is an eminent academic historian, and Paul Johnson is extremely well known for his historical works. I'm not seeing the point of this discussion. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Most doctoral theses within the humanities are based on historical research to a point. That doesn't make everyone with a humanities PhD a historian. If you want to find historians to back up what you're saying in the article, there's nothing to stop you, but you can't "downgrade" the other sources, as it were. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The point is Siemon-Netto is a historian. His study is all about the subject of Luther and the Jews, Luther's views on civil resistence and the ways Luther's views have be characterized in the past. If his qualifications are not good enough for us to say so, neither are Johnson's. If Johnson'd are good enough, so is Siemon-Netto's. I propose allowing all to be called historians or none be characterized (people can click on links if they want to know who these people are). As it stands, we subtly devalue Siemon-Netto's work.--CTSWyneken 20:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
No one here agrees with you that he is an historian. Can you provide an authoritative third-party source that refers to him as an historian? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Would those who want to call Siemon-Netto an historian please list his publications about history, and also provide authoritative third-party sources who refer to him as an historian? Otherwise please stop these endless attempts to elevate everything you agree with and denigrate everything that doesn't fit your POV. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Slim, you make my point for me. I am insisting on fair treatment. We ascribe equally or not at all. It is a POV to call Journalist Johnson a historian, while calling historian Siemon-Netto a journalist. Call them both journalists, both historians or let their articles speak for them. I'm very tired of every Luther scholar being disparaged by our articles. --CTSWyneken 21:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Paul Johnson has published 16 works of history, many of them best-sellers, and is widely regarded as an historian. Siemon-Netto has published very little, a couple of works on God and Luther, so far as I know, and I have never seen him called an historian. Please produce third-party sources rather than continuing to offer your own opinion. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
A Google search for "historian Paul Johnson" produces over 35,000 hits. [5] A search for "historian Uwe Siemon-Netto" produces one hit, and it's from Wikipedia. [6] SlimVirgin (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
So, what you're saying is a historian is a historian because he's famous as a historian? Just want to be clear. Our definition of historian is that lots of people say he or she is a historian? --CTSWyneken 23:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
That's correct. People are historians because other people recognize them as historians. These people might be universities, or good publishing houses, or good newspapers, or good book reviewers. All of these recognize Paul Johnson and Robert Michael as historians. None of these recognizes Uwe Siemon-Netto as a historian. Not even his Wikipedia article, which you wrote, recognizes him as a historian. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
So our article, historian is incorrect, as is the Merriam-Webster dictionary: "1 : a student or writer of history; especially : one that produces a scholarly synthesis?"
My role in writing the Siemon-Netto article is not relevant since it is not my article alone. You and others haved edited it. Nor is it necessarily complete. As far as Michael goes, I've never questioned in the least bit that he is a historian. Nor outside of the questioning of Siemon-Netto's credentials have I questioned Johnson's role as a popular historian. Only when others have attacked a man who is expert in the subject of this article have I examined the credentials of these men. The point being that anyone can be made to seem unqualified if you look at them negatively. From that side, Johnson has no degree and Michael is not a Luther scholar. None of that is relevant until our articles recommend one over the other, which is what is being done here. --CTSWyneken 10:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
No recommendations are being made. All we're saying is that NO-ONE calls Netto a historian. Find a third-party source or stop going on about it, please. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Then let's drop all the ascriptions. These scholars have links to their own pages here and the readers can go there for background and decide who they will believe. --CTSWyneken 11:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
What, because your source isn't an historian, no one else's source is allowed to be one? It's your ball and you're going home? SlimVirgin (talk) 12:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Whether you agree or not, Siemon-Netto is a historian by reason of his intense study of the life and thought of Martin Luther and his publication on the same topic. Just because someone is not called a historian does not change this reality. If you all are going to keep deleting the historian ascription for him, I'm not going to belabor it. However, it is not right to subtly bias the reader against his contribution by ascribing titles to others, sometimes at great length, trying to clue readers into thinking their opinions more important than Siemon-Netto and others. So, my proposal is simply not to ascribe. There are many articles in Wikipedia that do not ascribe anything to source scholars. Removing such simply adds another article or two to their company. Or are you saying we have to make Johnson and Michael more important than other scholars? --CTSWyneken 13:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Your claim that Siemon-Netto is a historian is, has been shown to be at best, Original Research. It becomes important to clarify who these people are when you drive your POV by citing people outside their areas of expertise and then refusing to allow the identification of eminent scholars as being notables in the relevant field of expertise.--Doright 08:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Doright, I have seen your POV attacks before. Why can't you just let a good article be? Ttb 07:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drboisclair's POV tag

Drboisclair, you place the tag on April 26. [[7]]. Do you still want it on there? --Doright 07:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Problematic sentence

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)

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)

[edit] Is timeline needed in this article?

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)

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)

[edit] Schem Hamephoras

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)

It should be added, if it is documented. ArthurBD 00:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Category confusion?

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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/r/Talk%7EMartin_Luther_and_the_Jews_fff9.html"