User talk:Drboisclair/Archive01/

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, Drboisclair/Archive01/, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions; I hope you like it here and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian. Although we all make mistakes, please keep in mind what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

-- Sango123 01:59, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

[edit] I love it

I just wanted to tell you that I love what you did to The Black Arrow. I always have a hard time on,,, trying to figure out how to word things. Great job!! HopefullGomer 23:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rewelcome

I've noted your additions to Martin Luther and am glad to see more editors contributing to the article on this outstanding person. Note that links to any non-existent page appear in red and they are OK to have because (1) they alert others that the corresponding article should be created, and (2) when at some indeterminate time in the future such an article had been created, the various links within Wikipedia that were awaiting that article then automatically turn blue and become functional. It is better to put in internal links as you go along of what ought to be linked from here, because not doing so means that those links will otherwise probably never be added even after the corresponding reference is created.

It is helpful to create a user page that tells others something about you (it increases your credibility) and you can do so by just clicking on your own red-colored signature on one of your talk entries. That will open up the appropriate blank page for editing, and you could put whatever you wish there. Perhaps some of the data you included in your "My Qualifications" section of the Martin Luther talk page might suggest itself to you.

Please don't feel offended if an edit is challenged... without the benefit of knowing your qualifications (via your user page or otherwise) others who work on an article are naturally on guard for vandalism or rumors creeping into the articles. Bob has done so much work on various Lutheran-related articles in the last year, all valuable, and like any of us wants to be sure that the integrity and accuracy of an article to which he has devoted so much work is not eroded. He is quite right to suggest compromise language until he can verify something that is questionable in his mind. It is part of the consensus process. You have seen an example of it when I glossed over the "Crotur" reference until it can be verified, and you indicated your approval of such an investigation. We all develop a feeling of propriatorship over certain articles (mine includes Imperial Crypt) which is de facto, not de jure, but absolutely vital to protecting the Wikipedia against vandalism. Every article needs at least one guardian (I watch Haley Barbour to revert partisan cheap shots from those who are sore he won his election) and one should welcome the peer review that it provides the article's integrity. I offer these cultural insights in a spirit of welcome, because I realize that you are relatively new, and fraternally because I hope you will enjoy your experience here as much as we do. The guiding principle here is collaboration, not insistence upon something being only a certain way. Through such collaboration articles accrete more information to share, and through vigilance the nonsense gets reverted out. Fraternally, --StanZegel 05:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your Red Signature

David, your signature is red because you have not yet created your user page. Once you have a user page, your signature will turn blue. (I do not know if you have my talk page marked to be on your watch list, so instead of replying there to your question, I'm posting it here. I find that checking the Add pages you edit to your watchlist option under the editing section after you click the Preferences tab has been helpful because each page you change then is automatically on your watchlist. You can remove individual ones later by clicking their unwatch tab.) --StanZegel 05:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome Aboard!

Dear David:

Now that we're past the bumpy beginning, let me welcome you to the wiki. I'm watching already Lutheranism, Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, C. F. W. Walther, Real Presence, 95 Theses and a few others. I don't know Chemnitz well enough to watch his article, though.--CTSWyneken 20:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple Edits

Fear not to click the "edit this page" tab so that all of the sections are available to you at the same time; and fear not to keep the page open for editing for a long time. See these examples for a template that you can save into the article when you begin if you think (based upon time of day and habits of the others that you observe) that someone else is likely to try to be in there at the same time.

That way, you can make multiple edits without having a dozen separate histories each space a few minutes apart in the edit log. (And of course, filling in a short explanation of what you have done into the Edit Summary is important and helpful to others.) All of the edits are visible to those who follow if they use the comparison feature of the history page. Frequently using the preview button and doing all the fixups before a single Save Page click is something you may well find to be very workable. --StanZegel 20:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear David:

I'll take a look. My initial reaction is the info box can go. We have too much clutter as is.

Bob

[edit] Cfd

David, if you have a second, please vote on this: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_September_29#Category:User_la-N. It was overturned last time because of some jokers, and as a Lutheran, I suspect you know more about Latin than most (I can't read a Lutheran book without finding Latin peppered throughout!). :-) --Flex 15:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi, David. In response to your posts on my talk page... I'm actually a Calvinist, but I have some good friends who are Lutherans. We're all in the "Reformation tradition" and get along pretty well theologically. Anyway, I support deleting that category, as I wrote in the propsal for deletion. As much as I love the language, I can't deny that it is extinct. --Flex 16:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Luther Marriage / Family

David, I don't know whether my talk page is on your watchlist or not, so I wanted to let you know here that I have replied on my talk page to your inquiry there about your excellent marriage/family addition. --StanZegel (talk) 04:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

David, did you choose to omit the bit about the marriage being outside, at the church door, or did you just not notice it in my proposed text? Whatever you decide is fine. --StanZegel (talk) 01:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Law and Gospel

David:

A new article has begun on Law and Gospel, which credits Walther with making up the concept! 8-) I'm swamped at the moment. Would you have the time to add a few paragraphs? If so, I'll camp out on it and watch over it.

Bob

--CTSWyneken 00:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] New Law and Gospel

Nice job, David! I'll look at rearranging the deck chairs a bit if I can come up for air.

Bob --CTSWyneken 01:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


I've adjusted it a bit and will try to give it more attention. We need to add a sentence to Luther somewhere to credit him for the doctrine's signature expression and to link to this new article.

--CTSWyneken 11:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


I think the paragraph is fine. Let's add it. On the POV thing, yes, anyone can put a flag on, but we're free to revert it just as quickly as vandalism. It really is a lack of respect to do so when there has been no dialog, much less debate which has reached an impasse. That is what the flag is for. It is intended to attract the attention of the administrators to resolve a conflict. Just as we got your attention when you were new, so I intend to get other's attention when they are tactless like this fellow.

--CTSWyneken 03:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Knowledge of Classical Greek

grc Νεκρὴ εἴναι γλώσσα ἀρχαίη. Οὐχ ὑπάρχει ὁμιλστὴς ἰθαγενής.

Dear David,

I was tickled as I was searching through the classical Greek user pages to find that Drboisclair had claimed to be a native speaker by using the grc designation (see Wikipedia:Babel). Excellent wit!

While not claiming to be a native speaker of a dead language myself, I can give a rough translation / paraphrase / interpretation of the template above:

Ancient Greek is a dead language.
It is not possible to be a native speaker.

The highest Babel fluency rating that can be achieved in classical Greek by someone living today is grc-3.

Of course, I do believe it is possible for someone who spoke ancient (or koine) Greek to be resurrected ;) --CheerfulPaul 18:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your cordial reply to my first message; I was just working on my Wiki user page and trying to figure out the Babel classical Greek ratings myself. I hope that I can get it up soon. I noticed that there is no template for grc-4, either. Cheers to your knowledge of the Greek of the Bible (and other texts too, I'm sure). Please accept my remarks above as a sign of friendly admiration and respect. God bless. --CheerfulPaul 00:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Luther

One can do both at the same time. In any event, I only added one short paragraph that is NPOV and sourced, and restored material that had been in the article (put there by others, not me). Slrubenstein | Talk 22:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

You would have a stronger case for stopping work on an article if you explain how, exactly, it violates one of our policies. As to 20th century points of view, they may be included in the article as long as they are properly identified. Likewise, direct quotes from Luther as examples of his own views may be included in the article. This is not about offending me or you. Ben Gurion did some awful things to Palestinians and I cannot object to that fact being put in Wikipedia as long as it is included in a way that complies with our policies. As for Hillel, we do not have any historically accurate accounts of his life and teachings. But if we did have such an account and it revealed that he said or did things that were and continue to be controversial or distasteful, I would have no objection whatsoever to including that information in this encyclopedia, again as long as we follow the policies. Do not turn this into a Jewish versus Lutheran thing. What matters is Wikipedia policies and our compliance with them: NOR, NPOV, and accurate articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your characterizing my rebuke as "justified." However, I have made three comments on the talk page of the article — one after each of my reverts, explaining my reasons — and you have not responded to any of them. So while I accept your invitation to join the discussion with appreciation, I must also inform you, humbly, that I joined it some time ago. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Please read over all of my comments on the Martin Luther talk page. As it happens, I do agree with you that there is a difference, in my opinion an important difference, between anti-Judaism and anti-Semitic. But this does not matter!!!! It does not matter whether I believe this, or you believe this. What matters is, Bainton believes this, and he is a published author. Including his view does not violate NPOV in any way, as long as his view is ascribed (as it was) to him. The only problem was, we were not given an explanation of his reason for holding this view. That would add valuable content to the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Luther / Judaism section

Dave, you have reverted this section to primarily what I had edited it down to earlier this morning. But Jayjg has contructed a separate article on the subject (which I think is a good compromise) and he did add an additional relevant item about Spalatin. I had no problem with most of his restructuring of what I had done, and think that it would be appropriate for it to be restored. (Also: you need to use the Preview button more often!) Regards, Stan --StanZegel (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Typographers, for aesthetics, do include succeeding punctuation within the closing quote marks because the punctuation looks odd otherwise. It is true that the punctuation is not in the Urtext, but it is done for appearance without changing the meaning. (Have you filled in your e-mail address in your Preferences tab?) --StanZegel (talk) 17:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. So are the issues with that section all settled now? Jayjg (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to you, Stan, and Bob they are. I appreciate the education in how to be a productive Wikipedian. I like the courtesy and professionalism: we are a good team, a microcosm of the world community. drboisclair 18:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate you being reasonable and understanding. These are rare and precious qualities. Looking forward to future productive collaboration. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 01:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I know, Dave. Actually, differences do exist (we have separate articles for both) but this case is clear-cut, IMHO. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 22:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Doctor in Bibla

I forget... did we ever resolve this one? --CTSWyneken 02:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


I'll take a look at it again. Everything I saw, at least as I remember, said his degree was doctor of theology and his position doctor of Bible. --CTSWyneken 04:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


Yes, v. 10 calls Luther's degree "Doctor in Biblia," but doesn't give the source for the information...

In Brecht, v. 1, p. 125, calls Luther, "Doctor of Theology." On page 127, however, he says Luther called himself a "sworn doctor of Holy Scripture."

Bainton says he should study for the doctor's degree, undertake preaching and assume the chair of Bible at Wittenberg. (p. 59). Ah, I think here it is... Luther appears to sign his cover letter to the 95 Theses as Doctor of Theology. What do you think, David?

--CTSWyneken 15:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Bob, I believe that we should keep both as it presently is in the article. Dr. Nagel and Dr. Klann both said that the name of Luther's doctorate was "Doctor in Biblia" to reinforce Luther's expertise in biblical studies. By just saying that he is a doctor of theology is vague because one might ask what his specialization was. Sometimes one cannot determine the specialization; however, we have evidence that Luther's specialization is Holy Scriptures "Biblia". Karlstadt's specialization was in scholastic theology (systematics).

I will ask Dr. Rosin and Dr. Manteufel and Dr. Nagel again. I could also ask my old school fellow Dr. Timothy Dost too. Oberman points out that Luther's lectureship at Wittenberg was "lectura in Biblia" (Luther: Man between God and the Devil, p. 143: "Now the time had come to take over the task for which Staupitz had so long groomed him: the Lectura in Biblia, the chair of biblical theology, which Luther was to hold until his death." Since this was the slot "in Biblia" to be filled, wouldn't it follow that the doctor who would be fit into that slot would be "Doctor in Biblia"? Ask Dr. Marquart or Dr. Scaer. I would respect their opinions too. Please, let us leave it in place for now. drboisclair 17:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not in a hurry to change anything. I'm coming to think his degree was "Doctor of Theology" and his position was "Doctor of the Bible." I'd love to know what actual, primary sources have to say.

--CTSWyneken 21:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] C. F. W. Walther Alert

I have someone constantly trying to put Walther's view on slavery into a very short, sketchy article on him. Want to join the fun? --CTSWyneken 02:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Luther and anti-Judaism

The problem has been solved, at least for now. Jayjg (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Dave. I sincerely believe that understanding contributes to reconciliation. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 20:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me. I will look and see if I have anything more to offer; my inclination is to allow for a little more discussion. Have you or anyone else considered making an RfC (request for comment)? This is usually the first step in conflict-resolution, and sometimes people use RfCs ratehr aggressively. I know that you wouldn't, and would take care to make clear that you are not. The value, when you don't see it as an attempt to get support or intervention to resolve a conflict (i.e. as part of an adversarial situation, which I think none of us want) is simply to widen the circle of particpants in the discussion. Another way to do this is to place messages on various other article talk pages (i.e the main Judaism pages: Judaism, Jew, and Anti-Semitism; the main Christianity pages: Protestant Reformers, Protestant Reformation, Lutheranism, Protestantism and [[Christianity]; and the main inter-faith pages: Judeo-Christian, Judaism and Christianity, Christian opposition to anti-Semitism, Christian-Jewish reconciliation, Christianity and anti-Semitism). This may seem tedious, but I it seems to me that only a few people have been participating in this discussion and the discussion could be improved if more informed people participated. If you can word a very non-antagonizing/polarisint/partisan invitation to review the discussion (on either Talk:Martin Luther or Talk: Martin Luther and Antisemitism, or both) and then comment, we might all discover alternatives or approaches that haven't yet occurred to us. Just a suggestion, I leave it to you. Slrubenstein | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 18:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you again for your note. I respect your knowledge of Luther as well as your openness to the concerns of others. I still think that certain topics do benefit from inviting more people into the discussion. It sounds like whatever conflicts editors have had on the Luther pages have been resolved. I wonder though if any of them reflect underlying issues — not in you, personallly, nor in Lutherans, but rather in the Wikipedia community which is so heterogeneous. Misunderstandings are all too easy, and balkanization is also the easiest way to avoid misunderstanding. I believe dialogue is harder but far more valuable and productive. I appreciate your willingness to enter into a respectful dialogue. I wish others would enter into that dialogue, including people who perhaps have not been watching the Luther page (again, because I think there are bigger issues besides how to describe Luther, or one of his writings). Slrubenstein | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 21:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Shalom — and thanks, Slrubenstein | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 21:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I am glad that the Lutherans apologized, but you do not need to apologize personally for what Luther said, nor did I ever think you supported those comments. You know, I don't think Shimon and Levi should have slaughtered all of Shechem. We all have regrets, and ancestors who did regretable things. Slrubenstein | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 21:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Glad you liked it. I think the references make articles look professional. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 08:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] favor?

I have just added a new section to Judaism and Christianity on "love." If you are not sure what the spirit of the article is, and have not yet, look over it first. It was originally written to stand in opposition to the article on "the Judeo-Christian" ethic or religion or tradition, by people (lime myself) who think that it is just as important to discuss differences between Judaism and Christianity as it is to describe similarities (the challenge of this article is, can we discuss differences in a mutually respectful way – but the real point of the article is to make contrasts).

In any event, what I added is just a stub of a section, drawing on only two sources, both Jewish. Hopefully others will add more about the Jewish notion. But I know that my characterization of the Christian notion is at best wildly incomplete. I am very concerned about not misrepresenting, or doing justice to, the Christian point of view. When you have time, would you go over it and add whatever additional material, detail, nuance, explanation you think necessary? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I also added a long quote from Maimonides to the section on Heaven and Hell; in fact, I did a rewrite a week or two ago. I know the Jewish position is well-represented but again I am concerned that in the process the Christian view may appear misrepresented or at least underrepresented. So, I'd be glad if you would review it and consider what more can and should be said to represent the Christian view(s) properly. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Definition of anti-semitism

You wrote:

I agree that On the Jews and Their Lies is antisemitic in that it proposes a pogrom against the Jews. I take great exception to the charge Mr. Briangotts makes against Luther's work. I have a graduate masters degree in Lutheran theology, and I am fairly well-read in Luther. It is a distortion and a falsehood for anyone to say that much of his work is antisemitic.

Is it generally agreed that proposing a pogrom on Jews because of their rejection of Christ or Christianity is "anti-Semitic"?

I've heard various formulas defining anti-semitism, and I'm not sure whether even Wikipedia has been able to settle the issue. Perhaps it would be better simply to cite sources? Rabbi X called Luther's work anti-Semitic; Bishop Y acknowledged the charge and yet argues that many of Luther's other works are less so and some not at all. (Please use this made-up examples as a format to follow.) Uncle Ed


[edit] Physician Heal thyself, drboisclair stop slandering others

drboisclair, typical of your style, you continue to post your slanderous charges, but do so in such a way that lacks the specificity that would allow a person to defend themselves. Thus your attack is purely vicious and punitive. I understand that profound ignorance of a subject (e.g., you agree with StanZegel's comments about antisemitism, there is a difference between antisemitism and antijudaism: the arabs, too, are semites).--StanZegel (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC) and I quote you here, As pointed out by other editors Anti-Semitism comprises prejudice not only against Jewish people but also against other "Semites" like the Arabs. IMHO, drboisclair 17:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)) nor an anti-Judaic and antisemitic POV (e.g., you complain, "Jewish opponents lampooned and libeled Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary") preclude one from pushing their agenda. However, when an editor engages in mischievous plagiarism, [[1]] this kind of intellectual dishonesty must be dealt with by fair-minded colleagues. CTSWyneken lacking the moral courage to apologize at least had the good sense to not respond to the charge since he was caught red-handed. You, on the other hand, as his mate, do so not by addressing the issue of his plagiarism but by attacking me. And PS, please be more considerate of others. I take exception to your attacks. Doright 23:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Mr. "Doright", I am not slandering you. I am reacting to your own vicious attacks. You seem to deny anyone but yourself to have an opinion about the question of anti-semitism. You need to pipe down and learn a little more from others like Humus and Slrubenstein and Jayjg. They are gentlemen. You need to learn to do the right thing, which would be more suited to your chosen sobriquet. drboisclair 23:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


drboisclair, Is there no limit to your nonsense? I never denied that anyone but myself has an opinion. I do object to your ad hominem attacks and now straw man arguments to poison the well so that you can further what you refer to as your "Lutheran" agenda. By the way, scholars of antisemitism have only identified two groups that stake out your position regarding the contemporary use of the term. That is, you say: "Anti-Semitism comprises prejudice not only against Jewish people but also against other "Semites" like the Arabs." The two groups that have been identified are either ignorant regarding the subject matter or they are antisemites themselves, or both. If you have discovered a third group, I would be very interested in learning about it. Perhaps we could jointly author a paper presenting your discovery.Doright 01:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

copied for reference

Excuse me, sir, it is YOU that are levelling attacks, although, admittedly in your own space here. You here are judging Stan, CTS, and me. To some extent we are limited by the Wikipedia rule of "no original research." This is an encyclopedia and we sometimes summarize what we have gleaned from other sources in what we write. I post that to your charge of plagiarism. My caption for this comment still stands a fortiori. The only thing I would find fault with is your rudeness. It is unbecoming of a scholar if that is what you are, and I don't say you aren't. You are making quite a reputation for yourself here. drboisclair 23:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

drboisclair, excuse me, sir, since you attacked me in my "own space here," I responded here. Your repeated prevarications and dissembling are a nuisance. I can see from your reply, that again profound ignorance does not stop you from pressing your POV, even when the facts are handed to you on a platter. The non sequitur that you post, "we sometimes summarize what we have gleaned from other sources in what we write," is pathetic (but typical) since there were no summarizations. What was actually there prior to the improper tampering by your mate was an unambiguous html link [[2]] to the actual true source fully documented footnoted and referenced and completely transparent. Your continued and misguided harassment is not serving the goal of the encyclopedia. I respectfully again ask you to stop.Doright 00:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for the dialogue. I have no intention of levelling charges nor of engaging in ad hominem attacks. If any of my sentiments can be construed as such, I vacate them. Respectfully, drboisclair 01:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Antisemitism and On the Jews and Their Lies

Drboisclair, do you believe that On the Jews and Their Lies is Anti-Semitic?Doright 06:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps religiously anti-semitic, but not racially or ethnically anti-semitic, and it was certainly not Naziism; hence, it may be ambiguous to say that it was anti-semitic, because that distinction would not be seen. Luther did not advocate anihilating the Jews. He wanted to convert them; hence, his only objection to them was religious. If his objection had been ethnic or racial, he would have advocated killing them as did Hitler. IMHO, Hitler was the most hateful man ever to have lived next after Stalin and Mao Tse Tung. drboisclair 06:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
drboisclair, you engage in an act of Christian charity to respond seriously to preemptory questions hurled at you by someone who insists upon remaining anonymous and insults and reviles you. Many would have ignored such a discourteous person. --StanZegel (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Esteemed fellow Wikipedian, I think that many of us newcomers to Wikipedia do well to accept your kind and friendly guidance, for we work for a common goal: to provide free of charge the best information to all online. I have a problem with a newcomer who is rude, prejudges, and ascribes the worst possible motives to his or her fellow Wikipedians. My guess is that that sentiment is shared by all seasoned Wikipedians. Martin Luther, who suffers much from so much of his words being preserved, at least, wrote well in his explanation of the 8th Commandment (Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor): We should fear and love God that we may not deceitfully belie, betray, slander, nor defame our neighbor; but defend him, speak well of him, and put the best construction on everything. That is a good moral way for any decent person to act. I thank you for your support and encouragement. drboisclair 20:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it is a problem, and I think the best way to deal with these high school kids with such bad attitudes is to ignore and not respond to them. Perhaps in a few years they may acquire some maturity, but in the meanwhile they are not worth the time to explain why their edits are reverted and their baiting is ignored. We all have more valuable things to do than allow ourselves to be held hostage by typo terrorists. --StanZegel (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
StanZegel, your continued demonstration of bad faith and repeated attempts to spread ill will is duly noted. Please do not stalk me.Doright 04:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
drboisclair, You say, in response to the question, do you believe that On the Jews and Their Lies is Anti-Semitic, "Perhaps religiously anti-semitic ...." Does this mean perhaps you do believe it and perhaps you don't? What does "perhaps" mean here? I'm still trying to get to the bottom of this. I did not say anything about Nazism. Nor did I say anything about race nor ethnicity. Nor did I say anything about Hitler. By the way, killing is only one of the many solutions proposed by those who espouse antisemitism justified by race or ethnicity so I think that point is mute. However, since you do raise the question of killing:

When Luther proposed in On the Jews and Their Lies that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews, was he not saying that physical attacks against Jews should be allowed on the highways? Is he not identifying a free kill zone?

Do you agree that On the Jews and Their Lies does attempt to "anihilate" Judaism and does attempt to physically eliminate the Jews? Did you not say, "I believe that On the Jews and Their Lies is Anti-Semitic. If it were Anti-Judaic, it would not propose a systematic program to suppress Jews?" Doright 04:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I believe that On the Jews and Their Lies is Antisemitic, but I believe that one must make a distinction between the antisemitism of the 16th Century and that of the present day extending from the 19th Century when one has the genesis of the "pure race" theory. I think that you make the mistake of begging the question re: killing and annihilation through extended inference. You have to limit yourself to what the person actually writes. You have to be more disinterested or at least write more disinterestedly as does Humus Sapiens. This does not mean that you do not have a passion to oppose intolerance and prejudice. More can be said by understatement than by fiery rhetoric. Why must you make it your mission to completely trash what great men were and did to satisfy a vendetta? That is how you come across to me. Are you a Luther scholar? I am, although not as accomplished as Roland Bainton or James Kittelson or Heiko Oberman. I am well aware of the fact that an objective tool like Wikipedia cannot whitewash anyone, but it should not unduly vilify: our experienced Wikipedian Jayjg reminds us of that. I believe that On the Jews is antisemitic because it goes beyond religious opposition to political and social sanctions against the Jews. Luther's suggestion are clearly opposed by more enlightened men of his day like the authors of Letters of Obscure Men, Andrew Osiander, and Josel of Rosheim. We must steer clear of jumping to conclusions like: Luther is a Hitler or that Luther proposes an ethnic cleansing model as did Hitler. I oppose jumping to the conclusion that Luther's propositions are the same thing as annihilating (sorry about the spelling error above). That is unobjective and unhistorical. There is a legitimate reason for distinguishing Luther's antisemitism from Hitler's antisemitism. That is the reason that some scholars make the distinction of "Anti-Judaism" and "Anti-Semitism." That is what we are doing in order to be accurate and objective. You cannot accuse people of bad motives simply because they want to discover the truth of something. The Torah says: "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor" (Exodus 20:13): explain everything in the best possible way, admittedly without whitewashing. Shalom. drboisclair 11:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Physician Heal thyself, drboisclair stop slandering others

drboisclair, typical of your style, you continue to post your slanderous charges, but do so in such a way that lacks the specificity that would allow a person to defend themselves. Thus your attack is purely vicious and punitive. I understand that profound ignorance of a subject (e.g., you agree with StanZegel's comments about antisemitism, there is a difference between antisemitism and antijudaism: the arabs, too, are semites).--StanZegel (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC) and I quote you here, As pointed out by other editors Anti-Semitism comprises prejudice not only against Jewish people but also against other "Semites" like the Arabs. IMHO, drboisclair 17:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)) nor an anti-Judaic and antisemitic POV (e.g., you complain, "Jewish opponents lampooned and libeled Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary") preclude one from pushing their agenda. However, when an editor engages in mischievous plagiarism, [[3]] this kind of intellectual dishonesty must be dealt with by fair-minded colleagues. CTSWyneken lacking the moral courage to apologize at least had the good sense to not respond to the charge since he was caught red-handed. You, on the other hand, as his mate, do so not by addressing the issue of his plagiarism but by attacking me. And PS, please be more considerate of others. I take exception to your attacks. Doright 23:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Mr. "Doright", I am not slandering you. I am reacting to your own vicious attacks. You seem to deny anyone but yourself to have an opinion about the question of anti-semitism. You need to pipe down and learn a little more from others like Humus and Slrubenstein and Jayjg. They are gentlemen. You need to learn to do the right thing, which would be more suited to your chosen sobriquet. drboisclair 23:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


drboisclair, Is there no limit to your nonsense? I never denied that anyone but myself has an opinion. I do object to your ad hominem attacks and now straw man arguments to poison the well so that you can further what you refer to as your "Lutheran" agenda. By the way, scholars of antisemitism have only identified two groups that stake out your position regarding the contemporary use of the term. That is, you say: "Anti-Semitism comprises prejudice not only against Jewish people but also against other "Semites" like the Arabs." The two groups that have been identified are either ignorant regarding the subject matter or they are antisemites themselves, or both. If you have discovered a third group, I would be very interested in learning about it. Perhaps we could jointly author a paper presenting your discovery.Doright 01:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

copied for reference

Excuse me, sir, it is YOU that are levelling attacks, although, admittedly in your own space here. You here are judging Stan, CTS, and me. To some extent we are limited by the Wikipedia rule of "no original research." This is an encyclopedia and we sometimes summarize what we have gleaned from other sources in what we write. I post that to your charge of plagiarism. My caption for this comment still stands a fortiori. The only thing I would find fault with is your rudeness. It is unbecoming of a scholar if that is what you are, and I don't say you aren't. You are making quite a reputation for yourself here. drboisclair 23:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

drboisclair, excuse me, sir, since you attacked me in my "own space here," I responded here. Your repeated prevarications and dissembling are a nuisance. I can see from your reply, that again profound ignorance does not stop you from pressing your POV, even when the facts are handed to you on a platter. The non sequitur that you post, "we sometimes summarize what we have gleaned from other sources in what we write," is pathetic (but typical) since there were no summarizations. What was actually there prior to the improper tampering by your mate was an unambiguous html link [[4]] to the actual true source fully documented footnoted and referenced and completely transparent. Your continued and misguided harassment is not serving the goal of the encyclopedia. I respectfully again ask you to stop.Doright 00:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for the dialogue. I have no intention of levelling charges nor of engaging in ad hominem attacks. If any of my sentiments can be construed as such, I vacate them. Respectfully, drboisclair 01:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Antisemitism and On the Jews and Their Lies

Drboisclair, do you believe that On the Jews and Their Lies is Anti-Semitic?Doright 06:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps religiously anti-semitic, but not racially or ethnically anti-semitic, and it was certainly not Naziism; hence, it may be ambiguous to say that it was anti-semitic, because that distinction would not be seen. Luther did not advocate anihilating the Jews. He wanted to convert them; hence, his only objection to them was religious. If his objection had been ethnic or racial, he would have advocated killing them as did Hitler. IMHO, Hitler was the most hateful man ever to have lived next after Stalin and Mao Tse Tung. drboisclair 06:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
drboisclair, you engage in an act of Christian charity to respond seriously to preemptory questions hurled at you by someone who insists upon remaining anonymous and insults and reviles you. Many would have ignored such a discourteous person. --StanZegel (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Esteemed fellow Wikipedian, I think that many of us newcomers to Wikipedia do well to accept your kind and friendly guidance, for we work for a common goal: to provide free of charge the best information to all online. I have a problem with a newcomer who is rude, prejudges, and ascribes the worst possible motives to his or her fellow Wikipedians. My guess is that that sentiment is shared by all seasoned Wikipedians. Martin Luther, who suffers much from so much of his words being preserved, at least, wrote well in his explanation of the 8th Commandment (Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor): We should fear and love God that we may not deceitfully belie, betray, slander, nor defame our neighbor; but defend him, speak well of him, and put the best construction on everything. That is a good moral way for any decent person to act. I thank you for your support and encouragement. drboisclair 20:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it is a problem, and I think the best way to deal with these high school kids with such bad attitudes is to ignore and not respond to them. Perhaps in a few years they may acquire some maturity, but in the meanwhile they are not worth the time to explain why their edits are reverted and their baiting is ignored. We all have more valuable things to do than allow ourselves to be held hostage by typo terrorists. --StanZegel (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
StanZegel, your continued demonstration of bad faith and repeated attempts to spread ill will is duly noted. Please do not stalk me.Doright 04:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
drboisclair, You say, in response to the question, do you believe that On the Jews and Their Lies is Anti-Semitic, "Perhaps religiously anti-semitic ...." Does this mean perhaps you do believe it and perhaps you don't? What does "perhaps" mean here? I'm still trying to get to the bottom of this. I did not say anything about Nazism. Nor did I say anything about race nor ethnicity. Nor did I say anything about Hitler. By the way, killing is only one of the many solutions proposed by those who espouse antisemitism justified by race or ethnicity so I think that point is mute. However, since you do raise the question of killing:

When Luther proposed in On the Jews and Their Lies that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews, was he not saying that physical attacks against Jews should be allowed on the highways? Is he not identifying a free kill zone?

Do you agree that On the Jews and Their Lies does attempt to "anihilate" Judaism and does attempt to physically eliminate the Jews? Did you not say, "I believe that On the Jews and Their Lies is Anti-Semitic. If it were Anti-Judaic, it would not propose a systematic program to suppress Jews?" Doright 04:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I believe that On the Jews and Their Lies is Antisemitic, but I believe that one must make a distinction between the antisemitism of the 16th Century and that of the present day extending from the 19th Century when one has the genesis of the "pure race" theory. I think that you make the mistake of begging the question re: killing and annihilation through extended inference. You have to limit yourself to what the person actually writes. You have to be more disinterested or at least write more disinterestedly as does Humus Sapiens. This does not mean that you do not have a passion to oppose intolerance and prejudice. More can be said by understatement than by fiery rhetoric. Why must you make it your mission to completely trash what great men were and did to satisfy a vendetta? That is how you come across to me. Are you a Luther scholar? I am, although not as accomplished as Roland Bainton or James Kittelson or Heiko Oberman. I am well aware of the fact that an objective tool like Wikipedia cannot whitewash anyone, but it should not unduly vilify: our experienced Wikipedian Jayjg reminds us of that. I believe that On the Jews is antisemitic because it goes beyond religious opposition to political and social sanctions against the Jews. Luther's suggestion are clearly opposed by more enlightened men of his day like the authors of Letters of Obscure Men, Andrew Osiander, and Josel of Rosheim. We must steer clear of jumping to conclusions like: Luther is a Hitler or that Luther proposes an ethnic cleansing model as did Hitler. I oppose jumping to the conclusion that Luther's propositions are the same thing as annihilating (sorry about the spelling error above). That is unobjective and unhistorical. There is a legitimate reason for distinguishing Luther's antisemitism from Hitler's antisemitism. That is the reason that some scholars make the distinction of "Anti-Judaism" and "Anti-Semitism." That is what we are doing in order to be accurate and objective. You cannot accuse people of bad motives simply because they want to discover the truth of something. The Torah says: "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor" (Exodus 20:13): explain everything in the best possible way, admittedly without whitewashing. Shalom. drboisclair 11:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Repy to above

You wrote to me two days ago but then archived your page. I didn’t know if I should reply on your archive page, since it seems to be a contradiction to have a conversation within an archive. So I’m replying here. I’ve included a copy of the conversation above from your newly archived page so that my reply would be in context. As you know, you started the conversation with the personal attack on my talk page with the heading == Physician, heal thyself == Here’s my reply to your most recent comments above in the order that you present them.

I fully agree with you, as do apparently all scholars of antisemitism that On the Jews and Their Lies is Antisemitic. Furthermore, apparently no scholar denies there are distinctions that can be made between the modal antisemitsm of Luther’s 16th century Germany, 19th Century Germany and Hitler’s 20th Century Germany and today. If you are aware of any scholars that deny such a distinction or any wikipedians that deny such a distinction, I will be indebted to you for bringing their work to my attention. Since there is in fact no debate about this, it is difficult to understand this other than as a red herring.

However, your phrase “that of the present day extending from the 19th Century” belies your POV for which there is apparently no scholarly support. That is, you imply that antisemitism of the “present day” and of Hitler’s Germany “extends from the 19th Century” deus ex machina. That is, you imply that whatever antisemitism is today, it only has its roots as deep as and common character with that of the 19th century. Furthermore, you deny that antisemitism of 19th century Germany is connected (causally or otherwise) to the antisemitism expressed by Luther’s 16th Century Germany.

Now, responding to my question, “Do you agree that On the Jews and Their Lies does attempt to "annihilate" Judaism and does attempt to physically eliminate the Jews,” you say you think I am “begging the question” and say that “You have to limit yourself to what the person actually writes.” Well here are a few quotations from Luther’s On the Jews and Their Lies also cited by another scholar, Dr Michael, where he says Luther is calling for “mass murder” of the Jews.

Here are Dr Michael’s impeccable credentials [[5]] Dr. Michael says Luther “urged mass murder of Jews.” The below material is directly quoted from Dr. Michael where he repeatedly says “Luther clearly stated that all Jews should be murdered.”

“In "On the Jews and Their Lies," Luther clearly stated that all Jews should be murdered. (emphasis added) "We are even at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin). We are at fault in not slaying them." Hans Hillerbrand, "Martin Luther and the Jews," in James Charlesworth, ed., Jews and Christians (New York 1990), 132.

Luther implored the German princes to follow a cruel policy, actually carried out four hundred years later by a modern German "prince," Adolf Hitler. Both Luther and Hitler advocated the destruction of Jewish religious culture, the abrogation of legal protection, expropriation, forced labor, and expulsion of the politically defenseless Jews. Luther also urged mass murder of Jews.” (emphasis added)

Luther's program for the Jews asked the princes three times to kill Jews who resisted. (emphasis added) His third and fourth steps mention "pain of death" and "pain of loss of life and limb." His fifth step advises the authorities to deprive the Jews of safe passage once they have left their ghettos. Another passage of "On the Jews and Their Lies" indicates that Luther saw the necessity of killing at least some of the Jews: "I wish and I ask that our rulers who have Jewish subjects exercise a sharp mercy toward these wretched people . . .. They must act like a good physician who, when gangrene has set in, proceeds without mercy to cut, saw, and burn flesh, veins, bone, and marrow. Such a procedure must also be followed in this instance. Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them, as Moses did in the wilderness, slaying three thousand lest the whole people perish. [They are a] people possessed . . .." “


“A sermon of 1539 argued that "I cannot convert the Jews. Our Lord Jesus Christ did not succeed in doing it. But I can stop up their mouths so that they will have to lie upon the ground." The language is ambiguous, but it implies a death threat. The imprecise language allowed people of good will to believe that outright murder was not being proposed, while at the same time this kind of language permitted them to "speak about the unspeakable," the mass murder of Jews.” (emphasis added)

ref: Martin Luther. Dr. Robert Michael, h-antisemitism 25 May 1994.

As demonstrated above, it is Luther’s own writings that say to kill the Jews. It appears to me that you should consider your own advice. “You have to limit yourself to what the person actually writes. You have to be more disinterested … .”

I think it would have been better if you had stopped with the above. However, again exposing the pathos underlying your POV, you go on to attack me personally. You suggest that I am attempting to “satisfy a vendetta against Luther.” While I did not initially understanding what that vendetta might be, you go on to make it clear by attempting to label me as a Jew using the codes of a “Torah” reference and “Shalom.” You then imply that is the explanation for why it would be my mission “to completely trash what great men [Luther] were and did.” Is it an expression of antisemitism to suggest today’s Jews have a such an irrational vendetta? Why conclude that I’m Jewish? Then you go on to say, “We must steer clear of jumping to conclusions like: Luther is a Hitler or that Luther proposes an ethnic cleansing model as did Hitler.” I guess this is more of the reason for the Jewish Vendetta while denying the similarities between and connections to 16th and 20th century antisemitism.

Here are quotes directly from Luther’s On the Jews and Their Lies:

So we are even at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin). We are at fault in not slaying them. Rather we allow them to live freely in our midst despite an their murdering, … . “What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? Since they live among us . . .”

First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them.

Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed.

Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them.

Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb.

Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews.

Sixth, I advise … that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them ….

They must be driven from our country.

Plus, this is what the translator and editors of “Luther’s Works” add as a footnote to their translation regarding what they called “Luther’s proposals.”


Most of Luther's proposals are paralleled in the other anti-Jewish literature of the period, but the specific formulation which follows may be attributed to him. Fortunately, as has been noted above (p. 135), most of the authorities proved unwilling to carry out his recommendations, whether out of horror at their inhumanity or out of self-interest (since Jews played an important role in the economy). It is impossible to publish Luther's treatise today, however, without noting how similar to his proposals were the actions of the National Socialist regime in Germany in the 1930's and 1940's. On the night of November 9-10, 1938, the so-called Kristallnicht, for example, 119 synagogues in all parts of Germany, together with many Jewish homes and shops, were burned to the ground (cf. William H. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1960), 430 ff.). In subsequently undertaking the physical annihilation of the Jews, however, the Nazis surpassed even Luther's severity.

You repeatedly admonish against “jumping to conclusions.” However, IMHO, we must steer clear of denying the simple truth that Luther wrote these things and what the words meant. For example, when Luther writes, “They must be driven from our country,” the conclusion you claim I “jump to” is that Luther said, they must be driven from our country. There is clearly no jump. It seems rather that it is your POV that is jumping to conclude that Luther’s words mean something other than what he wrote. The translator and editors of Luther’s Works call these “LUTHER’S PROPOSALS.”

And, since you bring up the question of ethnic cleansing, perhaps you would be kind enough to point out the essential difference between the definition of ethnic cleansing and “LUTHER’S PROPOSALS.”

Finally, I remind you of the warning you have already received from at least one wikipedia administrator:

“Do not turn this into a Jewish versus Lutheran thing. What matters is Wikipedia policies and our compliance with them: NOR, NPOV, and accurate articles.”

I think it’s good advice.Doright 06:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Drboisclair's reply to the above

Thankyou for taking the time to respond to these matters. First of all, who is the administrator that you are speaking of? You post that that individual gave me a warning. It was advice, and not a warning. I think that you would do well to follow that advice yourself as well, because with the rhetoric you employ you are pushing your own POV with a vengeance.

You are the one who is provoking a "Jewish versus Lutheran thing". Editors are dialoguing with editors about making changes while you simply jump in using POV language. For example, you need to point out that it is simply Dr. Michael's opinion that Luther is advocating killing Jews.

I sense from the tenor of your rhetoric that you alone have the right to speak authoritatively about these topics. Have you taken graduate courses on Luther? Why don't you reveal a little more about yourself so we can see your competence to speak about these issues.

What disturbs me most about your contributions here is your lack of civility. I would like to be civil with you. I would like to hear about what you have to say, but when you come across as if your position is the only tenable one, then that makes it difficult for me to pay any attention to you. All of us can learn so much from each other. It is helpful for me to see how Luther is perceived among Jewish people and Jewish scholars. I am sorry if I have offended you by thinking that you are a Jewish scholar or student. As it is, your anonymity tells us little more than that you are there and making a fuss. I do not begrudge you your right to remain anonymous, but IMHO one should be more humble in setting forward their opinions if they are anonymous. If you are a reputable scholar in your own right, you would deserve deference on these matters.

You accused me of making it a "Jewish versus Lutheran thing". All I can see here is a "Doright versus Drboisclair" thing. I respect and admire users Jayjg, Mr. Rubenstein, and Humus Sapiens. They have gained that respect by their civility and candor. I think that you would do well to do the same. Respectfully posted, drboisclair 07:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, but not surprisingly, you do not address the evidence I bothered, in good faith, to provide you. Instead of addressing the veracity of my argument, you regress to purely personal attack. This is exactly what you seem to do on the Luther related pages. I'm not inclined to respond to your additional self-serving chest beating. However, If you have a well reasoned response to my above argument regarding the Luther related material. I will continue to respond in good faith. Otherwise, have a nice dayDoright 06:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)