Talk:On the Jews and their Lies/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Quote

Could you please find a more scholarly quote for the intro, than this: "Pastor Russell Briese commented 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'."

It looks silly because clearly historians have found a link. We quote one in the intro saying there's a link! So it's bad writing, and a pastor isn't in a position to say what historians are at a loss to find. If what he says is correct (or is anything but a tiny-minority POV), there must be plenty of historians saying it, so could you find one please? SlimVirgin (talk) 12:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Slim:
Please do not characterize the work of others as silly. It does not help, since it is likely to raise hackles, as the below demonstrates.
Please take a look at Martin Luther and the Jews, the talk pages and the archives. This has all been discussed and cited in the past. It would save time if you would examine the evidence there. If you will not, I will have to repost it. In short, many historians have contested the link between Luther's words and the program of Hitler. If you wish to put Paul Johnson in the intro, then this view must be represented.
On the quotation, the pastor is, in fact, a historian. It is an adress given by invitation of an organization that includes Rabbis and Pastors. It is on the subject of Luther's role in antisemitism. It was printed in a journal. It is only one of the conclusions he makes, but it is the clearest counterpoint to Johnson's quote. He is as close an expert on this topic as Johnson is. Therefore, if the one quote stays, so must the other. --CTSWyneken 13:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Take some Thorazine, okay? There's nothing like horse tranquilizer to calm down people who get excited over nothing. A little history discussion should be exactly that - a history discussion, not a rant and forum for pugilism.

[edit] The Campaign to Overvilify Luther

I am appalled that there is an administrator, who has taken it upon him/herself to engage in this vilification of Martin Luther. It adds to the negative public image that Wikipedia has over the internet. This is biased propaganda that pushes a anti-Lutheran POV. I am appalled that this is the activity of an administrator. How despicable. This is as great an outrage to me as a Lutheran Christian as posting such inflammatory material would be to a Jewish person. How hypocritical. drboisclair 12:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Rather than simply being outraged, could you reply to my post above, please? SlimVirgin (talk) 12:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
You have said that these pages were not ours. Well, they are not yours either to do with what you like. You do things unilaterally and push your POV with the inflammatory material you have added. You have reverted my edit that balances the matter. Now this article is POV. A Lutheran pastor is already as much of a scholar as a Jewish rabbi. He has had to graduate from college and grad school. So, the quotation is in order. May I suggest that you read the stuff that you have posted on your user page at the bottom, Ma'am. drboisclair 12:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Could you please tone down the rhetoric? The more you post in that tone, the less effective it becomes. I wouldn't quote a rabbi either if he was commenting on historians. It looks incredibly silly to say "historians are at a loss to find a link" and then in the very next sentence to quote a historian saying there's a link. It makes us look silly and the pastor look silly, particular as it's in the intro and therefore very noticeable. Either leave the intro as it is, or find a historian or some other scholar who comments. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Why not quote a rabbi, a rabbi is a scholar. I wonder whether you have a bias against clergypersons. Do you know the education required of Jewish or mainline Christian clergypersons? This article now is inflammatory and unbecoming Wikipedia. drboisclair 12:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Quit the rhetoric, please, or I will stop responding to you. Yes, I do know what education that entails. I am saying it would be preferable to use a scholarly quote. Rabbis and clergymen can be scholars too; I'm not ruling them out. I'm saying that an unknown pastor speaking at a meeting isn't a good source, especially not when the next sentence directly contradicts him. As for the intro, it is relevant to this book without question. It is your very strong POV on this matter that is telling you otherwise. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Your behavior here bespeaks your strong POV on the matter. You are not impartial. I don't care if you ever respond to me. I am surprised that a Cambridge University grad would carry on as you do. drboisclair 12:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Civility, please, both of you! David, there is no need to go at Slim, no matter how strongly you feel about the issue. Slim, would you please stop belittling other users and their additions? Also, do not assume Bliese is unknown, simply because he is not known to you. Also, if you do not like your additions removed or edited without discussion, then show the same respect to others, please.

--CTSWyneken 13:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's the pair of you who need to calm down. Every page I've seen you on ends up full of hysterical instructions and accusations. I've found one publication by Briese from 12 years ago: Foundations of a Lutheran Theology of Evangelism (Regensburger Studien zur Theologie); that indicates that he is not a well-known scholar. If the position that "historians are at a loss as to find a link" is a majority or significant-minority position, you should be able to find someone else who maintains this. If it is a tiny-minority position, we don't include it. So can you please refer me to other scholars who have said this, or anything like it? Also, please bear my point in mind that we will make Briese look foolish by including this quote, then having a historian directly contradict him. It seems unfair to do that. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Indeed Slim is correct and nothing ever seems to change.Doright 09:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I see you've re-added it, CTSW, as you always do with drboisclair and Stan. You make both the article and Briese look absurd. We say the Nazis quoted it in their newspaper, we say it was cited at Nuremberg, we quote a historian saying it was the first step on the road to the Holocaust — and then we quote a Lutheran pastor saying historians are at a loss as to find a link! This is a classic case of a strong POV getting in the way of good writing and common sense. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Please stop with the characterizations and personal attacks.
I suggest that, if you do not like the Bliese quote, we remove the Johnson one as well. --CTSWyneken 13:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
If you don't mind making Bliese look foolish, it's not for me to protect him. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Adding the material is the only way, or one of the only ways to make this article NPOV. CTSWyneken, I commend you for your ability to deal with this matter impartially. I resent the accusations laid against you. drboisclair 13:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archived talk page

I tried to add the archive navigation button to both archive pages, but it got screwed up because there is no space after the word Archive and the #1?? So I left as is. See WP:ARCHIVE on how this works. Also, I noticed a break in the talk page editing from 3/27/06 to 5/8/06?? Why was this?? Thanks --Tom 16:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Direct Quotations from Martin Luther that Attacks Jews Specifically as a Race

In On The Jews and Their Lies,Martin Luther repeatedly attacks Jews as a race. Luther states:

"There, Jew, you have your boast, and we Gentiles have ours together with you, as well as you with us. Now go ahead and pray that God might respect your nobility, your race, your flesh and blood."[1]

Doright 23:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

"Therefore it is not a clever and ingenious, but a clumsy, foolish, and stupid lie when the 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."[2]

Doright 23:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

"There is one thing about which they boast and pride them selves beyond measure, and that is their descent from the foremost people on earth, from Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Rebekah, Jacob, and from the twelve patriarchs, and thus from the holy people of Israel. St. Paul himself admits this when he says in Romans 9:5 Quorum patres, that is, 'To them belong the patriarchs, and of their race is the Christ,' etc."[3]

Doright 23:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

"Oh, that was too insulting for the noble blood and race of Israel, and they declared, 'He has a demon' (Matthew 11:18) Our Lord also calls them a 'brood of vipers'; furthermore, in John 3:39,44 he states: 'If you were Abraham's children would do what Abraham did.... You are of your father the devil.' It was intolerable to them to hear that they were not Abraham's but the devil's children, nor can they bear to hear this today."[4]

Doright 23:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

"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. Despite this, they imagine that in God's eyes they rank as his dearest children."[5]

Doright 23:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

"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."[6]

Doright 23:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

"They turned a deaf ear to us in the past and still do so, although many fine scholarly people, including some from their own race, have refuted them so thoroughly that even stone and wood, if endowed with a particle of reason, would have to yield.[7]

Doright 23:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

"Furthermore, as Gabriel says, he must have come from among their people, undoubtedly from the royal tribe of Judah. Now it is certain that since Herod's time they had had no king who was a member of their people or race."[8]

Doright 23:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

"This was accomplished despite the fact that the other faction, the blind, impenitent Jews — the fathers of the present-day Jews — raved, raged, and ranted against it without letup and without ceasing, and shed much blood of members of their own race both within their own country and abroad among the Gentiles, as was related earlier also of Kokhba."[9]

Doright 23:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Why are all these quotes that show Luther's usage of "RACE" in the section titled "Religious basis of Luther's anti-Semitism?" What sense do they make in this section? Don't they make more sense in the section titled, "Anti-Semitism and race?"-Doright 10:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attempt to ban h-antisemitism from Wikipedia

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

[edit] Doright's revision of improvements

For the record, user Doright added new quotations to the article whose citations were not correctly formatted, lacked pagination, and took a position in a debate between Luther scholars and Dr. Robert Michael (and possibly others). I corrected these as far as I was able at the moment, did some rearranging of the section. User Doright reverted the whole lot, characterizing it as a POV distortion. I have obtained a copy of the Lewis article and read enough to see the summary does not do it justice. I will report the results when time permits analysis and identification of the pagination of the selections in our current text. It would be nice if he would provide page numbers.

Since I will not engage him directly, I would appreciate someone else weigh in on the issues involved.

The diffs are:

his new contributions.

after my corrections, additions and rearrangements.

his revert -- notice characterization in edit summary.

My revert.--CTSWyneken 14:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Doright reverts again, deliberately removing added quotation, moving citation away from text it supports, undoing corrections in citation form, removing the context for a Michael quote, readding redundant heading and moving Lewis quote out of logical sequence. Anyone else want to comment? --CTSWyneken 20:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, your changes look good to me; I'd like to see some explanation of what Doright thinks is "POV distortion". Could be, given the nature of the fussiness about this article, it would make sense to first say "Hey, this section needs some reshaping, here's my thoughts"; "be bold" is useful as a first suggestion, but "be careful of hornets" also is good. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, JP. To avoid an edit war, I'll leave it alone for now. I have just put up the verify flag on the section. I'll await the comments of others, since I do not talk with Doright. In the mean time, I will read the Lewis article, summarize my thoughts on it and report back.

--CTSWyneken 20:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

In addition to the problems above, some of which render this article inaccurate, pagination is missing for the Luther quotes in the body of the text and in the footnotes. Persumably the user has a copy of the text at hand and can supply them. Without them, the quotes remain unverified. --CTSWyneken 21:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Jpgordon, you say, "Well, your changes look good to me." Here are two of those changes ([First] and [Second] ). Both claim WP:OR as the rationalization for removal. The 1st deletes the sentence,"See footnotes for additional race quotes." The 2nd deletes the phrase,"while invoking a concept of race" from the sentence, "In On The Jews and Their Lies, Martin Luther repeatedly attacks Jews while invoking a concept of race." Please identify the reasoning that leads to the conclusion that it is OR. Also, note that this "good looking" edit leaves the additional race quotes dangling in the footnotes without context or explanation. Doright 05:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addition of the {Not verified} tag

CTSWyneken, Which citations are you claiming could not be verified? It may not be good practice to use this flag for material that you have not taken the time to read. It's probably better to reserve it for citations for which you have at least conducted some due dilligence. Doright 21:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Please note I do not reply to this user. --CTSWyneken 21:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry CTSWyneken, if you continue to refuse to identify exactly what it is you claim could not be verified, your tag will be removed. Please see WP:DISRUPT. It makes no sense to run up a red flag and then refuse to answer the simple question of "why?" Please review WP:Civil. Also, please do no use such tags as rhetorical devices or as a personal reminder that you have not yet had time to read the sources. Doright 01:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
CTSWyneken, I've just discovered that you responded to my request, not in this section, but in the preceeding section. Some might interpret the placement of the response in a section preceeding the one containing the question as swizzling. Please do not embed your replies in random sections of the talk page.Doright 06:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
CTSWyneken, your rationalization does not support the application of the tag to the entirety of section 3 and all its subsections.Doright 06:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Same old Martin Luther talk page

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

[edit] Reasons for Verify Tag

For clarity's sake, the verify tag is up because I have identified and tried to correct the following inaccuracies, only to be reverted twice by the same user. In light of the way this user treats people who disagree with him (see Talk:On the Jews and Their Lies/Archive2#Discussion About context swizzeling by CTSWyneken and Ptmccainas a form of harrassment), I have good reason to believe making the changes myself will result in an edit war. Therefore the tag is there to request other editors to review, as JPGordon has done, comment and perhaps make the same changes. The problems are as follows:

  1. Note 15 on June 7, 2006 claims an article by Uwe Siemon-Netto supports the Halsall article. It does not. It supports the Siemon-Netto quote.--CTSWyneken 11:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Notes 16, 17, 18 claim to be quotes from the physical copy of On the Jews and Their Lies, but do not cite pagination. They are likely from a third party source, possibly from one of the copyright infringing sources (see User Cecropia's Opinion), in which case the citation should be to it, but cannot be (see WP:COPY#Linking to copyrighted works). Since this user has misquoted this very work before, (See "Luther's Antisemitic Race Quote, #4), the citations need to be paginated. --CTSWyneken 11:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. I have the Bernard Lewis article. The article cites the physical version of the article as its source, but does not paginate. Either the online version should be cited, or the page numbers included. In addition, the article states, among other things, "Racial antagoinsim represents a return to an earlier and more primative conception of identity... Modern ideological racism in the Wester world appears to derive from two historically recognizable sources. The first is the Christian reconquest and unification of the Iberian Peninsula, completed in 1492. First the Jews and then, a little later, the Muslims were given the choice of conversion, exile or death... forces conversion inevitably raises suspicion about its sincerity... So began the quest for what was called "purity of blood," by which alone, it was believed, the purity of the faith and Christian society could be safeguarded." (p. 21) At best, the summary of this article distorts Lewis' analysis.--CTSWyneken 11:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. The Michael quote which follows is from an email, which opens with the opinion of a scholar, with whom the balance of the message takes exception. Not summarizing that quote, which Michael felt necessary to include, removes the needed context. --CTSWyneken 11:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There are other issues with this contribution, but they deal with WP:NOR and writing style problems. --CTSWyneken 11:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I looked at this and support your edits with one caveat. Instead of removing "while invoking a concept of race", I suggest replacing it with something like ", at times explicitly referring to them in racial terms", because it is very clear from the quotes that Martin Luther is bringing up the issue of their race, and that's what that particular paragraph is about. I support your removal of the Lewis article section since that article sees modern racism in the Christian world as being driven by events in the Iberian peninsula and new developments in the practice of slavery. The connection to Martin Luther is tenuous at best. - Merzbow 18:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is it OR to say that these quotes show Luther as racially antisemitic?

(since this the following is on OR and NPOV in the latest posts, I've added a subheading to keep the subjects separate)

Thanks for the opinion. As to your caveat, the problem is that it is not clear to the Luther scholars in the paragraph above this section, nor the scholar whose quote I added and Doright reverted out, nor five others documented in the last talk archive of this page. So, by saying something like this, we are a best engaging in OR, taking it upon ourselves to interpret Luther's words in a way experts in his life and thought claim is inaccurate, or POV deciding whether these scholars or Dr. Michael are correct. But this issue is not a verify issue. --CTSWyneken 19:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Is it OR just to point out that Luther mentions race? He does so directly in the quotes. Is it really true that not a single one of the scholars referenced points out that he mentions race? - Merzbow 22:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
There are several issues here as I see it.
The first is whether or not these passages accurately reproduce the translation of On the Jews and Their Lies As I pointed out above(See "Luther's Antisemitic Race Quote, #4), user Doright has quoted an online version of this work before that substituted the word "race" for the translator's word, "people." To be sure that the translator's actual words are quoted, someone will have to go through several hundred pages of this work to look for the quotations, since Doright has not provided page numbers.
I provided all the pages numbers and you claim to have verified them yourself.Doright 06:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Now, assuming that the word is used by the translator, the question really is what does the original German of the passages say? If, as was the case in the above inaccurate quotation incident, the underlying word is "Volk," what meaning did Luther have in mind for it? The primary meaning is "people." Now, as an encyclopedia, we are not qualified to make a decision on this matter. To do so is either OR or POV.
Now that you have confirmed for yourself that the translator uses the word "race" repeatedly in translating On The Jews and Their Lies, you are free to cite other authorities that claim the translation in Luther's Work vol 47 is wrong. As a scholar of Luther and a full time paid librarian of an important Lutheran institution, surely you can find many sources that show the translations of Luther in Luther's Works are wrong. After all, to my knowledge, this is the primary English language source for Luther.Doright 06:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Turning to those scholars, all of whom have studied Luther thoroughly, their opinions are quoted here. One of them, Mark Edwards, has his specialty in Luther's polemics. It is his quote that Doright deleted. Because they state their opinion so definitively and so far only Dr. Michael has been quoted making a counter argument, we should not characterize the content of these quotes. --CTSWyneken 23:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
OK you've convinced me. Doright, do you have a response? - Merzbow 00:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
You have also convinced me CTS. You had some very good points. Thetruthbelow 19:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I, too, am convinced.Timothy Usher 21:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Above, Merzbow asks: "Is it really true that not a single one of the scholars referenced points out that he mentions race? - Merzbow 22:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)" I find no answer to this question. How about it CTSWyneken, after all, you are providing the citations and it does tend to make one wonder about these quotes.--Doright 08:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is it Original Research to dispute the quotations in the published "Luther's Works" without citing references that dispute the translation?

Page numbers have been provided. BTW, it's a bit shocking that a Luther scholar and librian at a Lutheran institution does not have access to [Luther's Works] and is not aware of these particular quotes. It is CTSWyneken that is engaged in Original Research. I am merely quoting "Luthers Works." Perhaps when CTSWyneken publishes his own translation of "On The Jews and Their Lies," we can cite him. Alternatively, it would be helpful, if he can provide citations from scholars that dispute the translations of the specific quotations.Doright 18:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, no references yet that dispute the translation of the term "race". Doright 09:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd say "Luther historian Mark Edwards adds: 'Luther identified a Jew by his religious beliefs, not by his race'" counts as dispute. - Merzbow 17:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
You may, of course, say as you wish. And, you may be correct that it may count toward a dispute of something (exactly of what, I'm not sure).
However, if we are to take that as evidence that Mark Edwards is disputing the published translation of "On The Jews and Their Lies," in Luther's Works, I hope you would agree, a whole lot more than that tiny quote is required. What say you? By the way, what do you think the chances are that there is a published English language translation of OTJATL, of any note, that translates the German into a word other than "race," that a highly motivated full-time librarian of a Lutheran institution (with either lots of free time or whose job description includes working on Wikipedia Lutheran related pages) either could not find or would not cheerfully report? My estimate is that the probability is very close to zero. Personally, I would love to see a published scholary dispute of the translation. Are you aware of one?--Doright 22:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Then say something like "although the translation implies that Luther is referring to the Jews in racial terms, many scholars dispute this". I'm sure Mark Edwards et al are quite aware of how the text is usually translated, yet they register their disputes as above nonetheless. - Merzbow 22:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, please edit this to your satisfaction. "The widely cited translation of On the Jews and Their Lies implies that Luther refers to Jews not merely in religious but also in racial terms. Despite the unambiguous statements found in the translation, some scholars claim that Luther could not express concerns about Jews as a race. This contradiction is evident in several statements found in the treatise. For example, Luther states:" --Doright 06:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
How about "The widely cited translation of On the Jews and Their Lies implies that Luther refers to Jews not merely in religious but also in racial terms. However, some Luther scholars disagree with this analysis directly, and many others hold that Luther's dislike of the Jews did not have a racial component. Here is a representative sample of quotes from the work:" - Merzbow 06:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
It's an excellent step forward. I support it. Now what?--Doright 06:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't quite work. "implies that Luther...also in racial terms" takes a side on the issue, so it is still OR. "some" Luther scholars also suggests that its a fringe opinion among Luther scholars that the reformer did not attack the Jews for their race but for their religion. This is not the case. Every Luther scholar I've read on this subject, if they address this issue, has said that Luther did not oppose the Jews in racial terms. I have now documented ten of them. At this point, only one scholar at all has been cited who thinks that Luther opposed the Jews because of their race. (Dr. Robert Michael) As I've said somewhere below, one of them, Martin Brecht, in fact said so soon after doing a detailed analysis and critique of On the Jews... and in the midst of condemning Luther's harsh comments. So, if we want to find a way to introduce Doright's list of quotations, we would have to try something like:
Dr. Robert Michael, .... (his position), believes passages from The widely cited translation of On the Jews and Their Lies imply that Luther refers to Jews not merely in religious but also in racial terms. (cite) However, Luther scholars disagree with this analysis directly, and many others hold that Luther's dislike of the Jews did not have a racial component. Here is a representative sample of quotes from the work:" --CTSWyneken 11:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
It seems we're close to a compromise here. The main sticking point seems to be if we can represent the 'translation' as pushing a POV in this matter. I've always been iffy about that. Anyways, I think CTSWyneken's version is good, and I really wish that somebody could find another scholar supporting Dr. Michael's view. Merzbow 21:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doright Once Again Reverts, Removes Dispute Flags

In light the above discussion, I restored the improvements. Doright once again reverted the changes, removing the verify tag and the NPOV tag. In addition, he has now resorted to a personal attack.

The only improvement he has made is finally to provide pagination, so that the quotations, contained in 169 page work can be checked. His summaries still ignore contexts and misrepresent the content, he still insists on making Siemon-Netto into a support for Halsall, deletes a quote from Mark Edwards and gives his opinion of Luther's words in the face of a number of scholars that insist Luther had racial motivation.

Since he does not want to listen to me, to now three other editors, the flags must remain up. Since he will undoubtedly continue to revert my changes, would someone else comment, and, if you agree, make the changes again? --CTSWyneken 19:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

In light of the fact that Doright is making absolutely no attempt to provide specific criticisms of CTSWyneken's changes, which have been agreed to by three editors now, I have restored his changes. I did, however, keep Doright's enhanced quotes and references. - Merzbow 21:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Make that 4 editors in total - CTSWyneken, Merzbow, jpgordon, and Thetruthbelow. You need to start engaging with us, Doright. - Merzbow 21:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Make that five.Timothy Usher 21:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Six. --Rekleov 03:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why are you deleting the section?

Why are you deleting the section, "Relationship between religious and racial anti-Semitism" that has been part of the article since April?Doright 05:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Because you cannot quote any source that affirms that there was such a relationship in Luther's time except for that one email, vs. numerous other far more reliable sources that disagree. - Merzbow 00:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Bernard Lewis, in “Identifying the Historical Roots of Racism” points to the “purity of blood” doctrine of the 15th century by which it was believed “the purity of the faith and of Christian society could be achieved.” Lewis identifies it as a “historically recognizable source” of “modern ideological racism.” “ In this we may see the beginnings of anti-Semitism, properly so-called; that is to say, a new kind of hostility to Jews” which is based on “racial or ethnic differences.”[10] Now, why are you deleting the section?--Doright 06:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The Lewis quote is still in there, but under a less POV section name ("Anti-Semitism and race"). The original name ("Relationship between religious and racial anti-Semitism") implied there was such a relationship in Luther's writings (this, after all, being an article on one of Luther's works), a view that is not supported by the vast majority of the scholars quoted in the article. - Merzbow 07:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
So you're saying that your preferred section name is POV, but somehow less so? One might ask why, in your preferred section title, Anti-Semitism is put into relationship with race and what this implies (this, after all, being an article on one of Luther's works). Perhaps we can avoid this debate, if we can "settle out of court" by adding the word Christian, because it is in fact Christian antisemitism that the section is talking about (no Islam here). So, the section title would read, "Christian Anti-Semitism and race." What do you think?--Doright 07:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "vast majority of scholars" reply from archive

Merzbow, regarding the "vast majority of scholars" you may find the following excerpts from the archives of interest:

Which ones are historians, though? They're all Luther scholars and Christian writers. Jayjg (talk) 22:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I trust that you not suggesting that a person can not write about Reformation history as a legitimate historian if he is Lutheran and/or Christian? That would be comparable to saying a person can not write about the history of Israel if he is a Jew who is a historian. --Ptmccain 22:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the article made false claims about historians. Theologians and Luther scholars are not "historians". What is it with your bizarre focus on Jews etc.? Jayjg (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Paul, Jay, let's stay away from personal comments.
All of the above are historians. Check their bios. If you can't find them, I'll look them up. These were the easiest -- ones I can do from home and not my office. As for all being Luther scholars, that is true. They have studied Luther and know him well.
Paul does bave a point, but let me put it in a less confrontational form. To say their judgment is to be discounted is like saying we should rule out Jefferson scholars when we talk about Jefferson.
We should, of course, look at historians of all backgrounds on this issue. Please feel free to add your own. All scholarly opinions are welcome. --CTSWyneken 22:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


I looked through the list; they're pretty much all theologians. Jayjg (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

They are also respected historians. What would cause you to doubt that? Perhaps a definition of historian would be in order.
As Doright recently reminded me, sometimes it is a good idea to consult a dictionary: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/historian --Ptmccain 21:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Uwe Siemon-Netto, for example, is a journalist and theologian. Jayjg (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

And, I might add, since Journalist Paul Johnson has less qualifications as a historian (academically), we'd end up ruling out his work... We could do this all day and have no one to quote. So, why not get back to quoting qualified scholars, ones with work recognized as such by the academic commnunity? That rules in everyone all of us have cited so far. --CTSWyneken 23:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Paul Johnson is a popular historian who has written many successful works of history. Uwe Siemon-Netto is a journalist and lay theologian with a doctorate in theology. There is no comparison. Jayjg (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
WP:NOR, WP:CITE. If you say "many" then you have to provide a source that backs that up. And what matters here is policy. Please desist from asking obviously disruptive rhetorical strawman questions. Jayjg (talk) 01:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

--Doright 08:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Doright, if you wish to refer to archived discussions, please simply provide a link or a diff to it. It would also be helpful if you would give some sort of idea as to why you think this conversation is relevant to the current discussion. --CTSWyneken 11:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I personaly have no problem with that title, but I can gurantee that CTS and other editors will. For now, I would just leave it as it is. Thetruthbelow 07:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear that you don't have a problem with it. Can you tell me why you are so sure that CTS will have a problem with it?Doright 08:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Analysis of Citations to On the Jews and Their Lies

Looking at the citations added to the quotes Doright restored:

  1. In this version of the page, Notes 18-26 duplicate the quotes which follow in 27-35.
  2. They are correctly transcribed, but only partially in context, as follows:
  3. The quote from p. 141 reproduces a portion of the argument that the Jews were proud of their decent from Abraham and they did not like John the Baptist's criticism of that pride.
  4. In the quote from page 149, Luther asserts that all people are born into sin, Jew and Gentile alike (p. 148) He then attacks them (p. 149) for what he believes to be their approach to God in pride. Gentiles should not be lured to convert to Judism, Luther warns, because this boast is futile.
  5. Moving forward to 174, the next quote again attacks the supposed boast of Jews that they are descended from Abraham. Luther charges them with disobeying the very law they boast of. It misses a harsher charge from Luther in the next paragraph, where he expresses the opinion that the whole Jewish people is demon-possessed.
  6. Moving back to page, Luther actually attacks the status of Jews as a unique people here.
  7. Moving further back to page 140, here Luther is leveling the false charge that Jews think of themselves as the only noble people on earth and that the Gentiles are not human. He spends the next few pages attacking the uniqueness of the Jewish people with one slander after another.
  8. Moving forward again, this time to page 156, Luther argues that Psalm 5 applies to all people, Jews and Gentiles, because, in his opinion they are... and issues this quote, plus similar ones.
  9. Continuing to move forward, on 176, Luther complains that the Jews have not listen to him and other Christians, including converts, refusing to see what is, to him, conclusive evidence that the Messiah has come.
  10. Further forward, on p. 250, Luther is arguing that the Angel Gabriel said that the Messian must come from the royal tribe of Judah, but that they have had no king of that tribe since the time of Herod.
  11. Finally, on p. 298-299, Luther argues that many thousands of Jews became Christians, even though the leaders of the Jews shed the blood of many of their people.

Having reviewed these, I come to two conclusions:

  1. We can consider the quotations verified.
  2. Scholarly interpretation is needed, because the wider context is not quoted in these passages. Neither Doright's opinion that they amount to modern racism, nor the opinion I've now come to, that Luther was arguing against considering Jews as a people and that the arguments of this book are thoroughly religious, should be in the article. If the quotes remain, they should do so either with scholarly commentary or now commentary at all. --CTSWyneken 21:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


Having read “CTSWyneken Analysis of Citations,” here’s my point by point response:

1. There is no duplication of text, merely that the same citations are identified. I have no objection to suggestions on how to improve the formatting so they retain their reference numbers.

2. Thank you for finally admitting that all citations are correctly transcribed. CTSWyneken, it must have come to you as a great shock that there are so many instances of the use of the work race in Luther’s Works. Try reading the rest of the book. It’s interesting.

3.-11. These are all entirely irrelevant. The quotes shows the use of the word "race" in On The Jews and Their Lies as published in Luther’s Works. You can try to divert attention from that simple fact by extending the quotes ad nauseum.

Response to CTSWyneken’s “Conclusions:” 1. Good. 2. Another rhetorical attempt to poison the well by falsely claiming knowledge of my opinion. Nowhere do I state my opinion in the article, nor have I ever stated that opinion in talk. CTSWyneken’s beliefs regarding Luther or me are not relevant. This has nothing to do with the article.

In conclusion, I find nothing helpful in CTSWyneken’s "analysis" or "conclusions."Doright 05:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


Doright, of course you would say,"In conclusion, I find nothing helpful in CTSWyneken’s "analysis" or "conclusions" and,"Another rhetorical attempt to poison the well by falsely claiming knowledge of my opinion. Nowhere do I state my opinion in the article, nor have I ever stated that opinion in talk. CTSWyneken’s beliefs regarding Luther or me are not relevant. This has nothing to do with the article". However to directly contradict you, CTS's conclusions establish that we can consider the quotations to be correct, which clears up any controversy that might have related to them. For God's sake man, give CTS some credit. Thetruthbelow 05:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Doright, your opinion of the quotes is irrelevant, the quotes are a primary source and you are not allowed to analyze them in the article without references sources (see OR). You want to make a blanket statement that Luther attacks the Jews 'while invoking a concept of race'. All you have to support your opinion is an email by a single person, against multiple published sources that claim the opposite. We would be quite justified in knocking out this source alone just for being based on an email. And even if the sources were evenly matched you would still not be justified in saying 'while invoking a concept of race' without also noting that many other scholars claim the opposite.
You might be surprised that I actually agree with you that Luther is 'invoking the concept of race'. But neither of our opinions mean jack squat in Wikipedia... you need to find some reliable sources for this. - Merzbow 05:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations to Luther's Works Vol 47, p121-306

Merzbow, again I have not stated my opinion, so please do not presume to know what it is. I suspect that it is far more complex and nuanced than you imagine. I’m sorry you have staked out such an extreme and in my view exceedingly odd position. I hope you are not married to it and will carefully consider the language. Your troubles may turn on a misunderstanding of “primary sources” and the epistemic differences between an original source (e.g., written in German) and a translation of that source (e.g., into English). I will assume that you have read the referenced treatise (On The Jews and Their Lies) in Luther’s Works, pages 121-306. I will also assume, at a minimum, you have read the intro of the main Martin Luther article [here], the [Luther and the Jews section of that article] ,the [Martin Luther and the Jews sub-article to the Martin Luther article] and the OTJATL article.
Now, here is the text that you find objectionable: “In On The Jews and Their Lies, Martin Luther repeatedly attacks Jews while invoking a concept of race.[18] [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] For example, in his widely cited English language translation Luther states … .”
I assume that you take it as already properly established that in On The Jews and Their Lies, Martin Luther repeatedly attacks Jews. Thus, leaving as your sole objection the assertion that Martin Luther is “invoking a concept of race.”
You claim this is MY “analysis” and that I cite no source for it. First, it is not mine and secondly, it is not an analysis. I, in fact, provide nine citations of the highest scholarly standard that support the assertion that Luther invoked a concept of race. The point that you miss is that I am citing a TRANSLATION of Luther’s writings. The translator and editors of “Luther’s Works” are my source. I think we can agree that words have meaning and that translators are very keenly attuned to this. The purpose of words are to invoke concepts. In my above citations, the fact that the translator and editors undeniably (and now “confirmed” by CTSW) translate the meaning of Luther’s German words to be, in English, the word, “race,” settles my case that it is not I, but CTSW, that is engaged in Original Research by making the claim that the translator and editors misinterpret and therefore mistranslate Luther’s words. I merely cite the scholars and translator Martin H. Bertram and Franklin Sherman as my source justifying the assertion that Luther invokes “a concept of race.” QED. By the way, I think it is inconceivable that the translator and editors were oblivious to the German language and the meanings of the word “race.”
Now that I have addressed your issue, perhaps you will be kind enough to address one of mine. [Why are you deleting the section, "Relationship between religious and racial anti-Semitism" that has been part of the article since April?] Cordially, Doright 21:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The claim that a direct translation of a primary source is still not a primary source is just wrong. Accepting such a statement would open the floodgates in Wikipedia to people quoting translations of any of the major works like the Bible, Quran, etc. and adding reams of their own interpretations without end, simply referencing the translation. I've worked with many serious editors on the Islam articles, for example, and they adhere strictly to this standard - for example, see here. Direct evidence why you are in left field is the fact that if it is so 'obvious' that Luther really is invoking the concept of race, why can you not cite a single scholar from a published source that supports your view? Would you be willing to go to mediation on this to get more opinions? I'm sure CTSWyneken and Thetruthbelow would be willing. - Merzbow 00:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm always willing to have others look in and weigh in on an article. I do not hold out much hope that it will help, however, since Doright has behaved in this manner since he arrived. That is why I do not address him directly anymore. --CTSWyneken 10:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I did not make any claim whatsoever regarding the question of whether a translation of a primary source is (or is not) a primary source. Nor does my argument depend on such a claim. Rather, as I mentioned above, it depends on the “epistemic differences between an original source (e.g., written in German) and a translation of that source (e.g., into English).” You have not addressed this. Please do, since it is the core of my argument. Finally, regarding your claim of being in possession of “direct evidence,” I have provided the best of evidence which you seem to be ignoring, I cited the scholars and translator Martin H. Bertram and Franklin Sherman in what is possibly the most important English language source on Luther. On what basis do you refute them? I’m sorry if I seem dense, I just don’t get it.Doright 07:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
You are treating the translation as if it were a secondary source supporting a particular POV - the disputed POV being that Luther refers to the Jews in racial terms. Even if we assume that such word choice by the translators constitute an appropriate scholarly reference for a POV in an encyclopedia (which I disagree with), it is minority view considering the number of scholars cited in the article claiming the opposite. So you cannot just assert that Luther refers to them 'in racial terms' as if it was a settled matter. - Merzbow 16:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Exactly the point. The question at this now is not that Bertram used the word "race" in these passages. I've verified that to be the case in all the instances currently in the article. The question is whether or not such phrases constitute a racist basis for Luther's anti-jewish rhetoric. At this point, all the Luther scholars listed point blank state that Luther's hatred was entirely based on religion. The only scholarly voice that I know of that suspects a racial basis for Luther's venom is Dr. Michael. In his article on Luther scholars, even he allows that it may be true that Luther's article that it may well be true. I've begun to go back through the literature on the subject, looking to see if someone comments on these passages. The very first I checked is Brecht, the author of the most respected Luther biography in print today. He spends several pages summarizing "On the Jews," but does not mention any of these passages specifically. While not excusing Luther, instead, taking the time to render a justly sharp criticism of the Reformer, he point blank says in the midst of that critique that Luther's attitude was entirely religious.
So, where this leaves us is that those scholars who've made a career of studying Luther's life and thought do not believe Luther's attitude was racial in any way. Therefore, we are not in a position to state it was.
Oh, and Doright... I appreciate the gentler tone of your most recent posts above and below. Please realize that your statement concerning my employment could be read as a personal attack, which I assume you did not intend. For your information, in any case, my position is tasked with the generation of electronic resources, which does take in projects such as wikipedia. It is also a called position, in the termenology of our church, which means I'm technically "on the job" 24/7/365, especially on Sundays and holidays! 8-) You are welcome to request copies of articles from me, as several wikipedians have, and I can provide it for you as an interlibrary loan transaction. There are some rules that go with it to satisfy the copyright code, but it works rather well. --CTSWyneken 04:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doright attacks again

Please note that Doright once again has engaged in Personal Attacks at Analysis of Citations... --CTSWyneken 11:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that Doright now also attacks Merzbow. He also mistakes moving text and deleting a sebsection heading with deleting a section. He then accuses this user of doing it, when, in fact, it was I who removed the heading and justified it above. --CTSWyneken 22:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Please note that Doright once again attacks me. Does anyone wonder why I do not engage him? --CTSWyneken 11:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current Influence on modern anti-Semitism

The next improvements I suggest are the following:

  1. Rewrite the summary of the Lewis article so it reflects what the scholar says accurately. --CTSWyneken 13:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Move the material that begins with... "In reply to Albert Lindemann, who said,..." through the end of the Michael quote so that it follows the Lewis quote. All of this is a general argument that racism existed before the 19th century, a conclusion that is controversial in itself. The counter argument, as the Michael email documents, should be researched and added here as well. This has the added virtue of restoring the flow of the section as it was before Doright added the material. In the light of new guideline Electronic mailing list archives, look for higher quality sources for both views.
  3. Where the line on Luther's repeated attacks, do a see reference with a wiki link to On the Jews and Their Lies (excerpts). Merge the quotes here into it. Eliminate notes 18-26, since they are not necessary in light of the full quotations which follow immediately. Look for commentary on any of these specific quotations, one way or another. In my previous exploration, I cannot recall having seen any. If no one can find such, ask if the words should be there at all.

More work is needed, but that should get us started. --CTSWyneken 11:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

This all sounds good, but don't worry yourself about who is going to revert what. There's multiple pairs of eyes on this article now. - Merzbow 16:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I made the move, the most modest of the changes proposed above. Let's see if it stays in place.--CTSWyneken 13:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Since the change has remained in place, I have now removed the redundant references. If this stays in place, I will next offer a replacement paragraph that summarizes the Lewis article accurately. --CTSWyneken 13:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another inaccurate citation

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

[edit] Doright Please don't attack users

First it was CTS, then me, now Merzbow. Please cease these uncalled for attacks. Thetruthbelow 00:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Merzbow, did I attack you?Doright 09:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't distort my views, Doright

Please actually read the 'Talk' page before editing again, Doright. Your attempt to re-insert the disputed language that six editors now disagree with by claiming that it's "Merzbow's language" is pure distortion, as I completely changed my mind on it 4 days ago after seeing CTSWyneken's arguments, long before the vast majority of my edits to this page. The reason that "at times explicitly referring to them in racial terms" is POV is because the entire preceding paragraph in the article is full of scholars being quoted saying that Luther is not doing so! (For example, "Luther historian Mark Edwards adds: 'Luther identified a Jew by his religious beliefs, not by his race.'") I don't know how this can be any more clear. If you want to put language like this in, you're gonna have to say something like "but the majority of scholars disagree". Unless, of course, you can find a bunch that don't and quote them. - Merzbow 06:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Merzbow for explaining that to Doright so plainly. I have been reverting his edits, and hopefully he will stop now. Thetruthbelow 06:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
To be fair to Doright, I don't see any problem with the additions of his that you reverted here. Merzbow 07:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
May I therefore assume that you will restore them, if an explanation is not provided? Please accept my apology for not keeping up to date with your changing views. After going back, I see you are right and no longer hold that view. My mistake. Sorry. However, the phrase you chose to express yourself "stop distorting my views" does tend to suggest that I have erred on your account more than this single time. If I have, please identify them for me and I will correct myself, otherwise I would appreciate you correcting this section title..--Doright
Sure. I'll wait until the end of the day for Thetruthbelow to respond regarding his reversion before putting it back. - Merzbow 16:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for explanation of reversions by Thetruthbelow

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

[edit] Intent to remove citation and supported text

I intend to remove note 17 in this version of the text and the quote it supports. The reference is as follows: "Michael, Robert., "Christian racism, part 2", H-Net Discussions Networks, 2 Mar 2000." This matter was mentioned above and no reply has been given.

Reason: The reference given leads to a menu and there is no message on this list entitled: "Christian racism, part 2." I invite anyone who has an opinion one way or another on this proposed change to comment here on the matter. --CTSWyneken 18:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Here's the actual link: [1] --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, JP! If there are no objections, I'll fix the reference and link. --CTSWyneken 19:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attacks and inaccuracies in the latest Doright comments here

Please note the following:

  1. Doright attacks a statement made by me before I had the chance to check his references, --CTSWyneken 11:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Claims to have quoted Sherman and Bertram, but has not. He has only quoted Luther. --CTSWyneken 11:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. attacks me again while trying to claim he has been attacked. --CTSWyneken 11:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Adds lengthy section from a discussion between two editor who is not in this discussion and myself. He was not a part of that discussion. --CTSWyneken 11:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Another retroactive comment. --CTSWyneken 11:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. More irrelvant material added from the archives. --CTSWyneken 11:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Message for User Doright

Dear Doright, since, as evidenced above, you insist on attacking users, and since not engaging you directly has not resulted in any change in this pattern, I will try once more to reason with you.

If you will cease to question user's motives, stop belittling them, calling them names, taunting them and other forms of personal attack, I will engage you directly again.

Further, if you will cease making unilateral changes, and instead discuss them first, will take greater care in citing your sources and abstracting them, we may well be able to work together.

If you continue on this path, however, I will seek to involve other to formally convince you to conduct yourself according to Wikipedia:No personal attacks --CTSWyneken 12:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Lewis abstract

As I have said above, the current Lewis article paragraph does not accurately summarize his essay. Here is an extended abstract of the article. Do we wish to keep the Lewis paragraph in the article? If so, how would we like to summarize it?

Bernard Lewis believes the roots of racism to be found in the instinct to view "at least with suspicion and more likely with hostility" those who are "not one of us."[11] Lewis contends that civilized societies progressed to the point of limited tolerance of others, as long as strangers were willing to be assimilated into the society around them.[12] Until "relatively modern times," societies responded in ways varying from expulsion or violence to limited tolerance. [13] The European religious wars eventually produced "a new idea, that of tolerance."[14] In the late 17th century, the idea of tolerance grew "beyond tolerance to equal coexistence."[15]

In practice, however, few societies achieved the goal of mutual tolerance and respect. Alonside this ideal grew "another kind of intolerance, based not on religion but on race. "It represented a return to a "more primitive conception of identity and difference."[16] According to Lewis, "Modern ideological racism in the Western world appears to derive from two historically recognizable sources."[17] One was the Spanish reconquest of Iberia, complete in 1492. Jews and Muslims in Spain were given the choice of exile, conversion or death. Soon questions concerning the sincerity of these conversions arose. So began the "purity of blood" quest, which reasoned that the only way to assure a fully Christian society was to exclude from it former Jews and Muslims. "In this we may see," Lewis concludes, "the beginnings of anti-Semitism, properly so-called; that is to say, a new kind of hostility to Jews. This is no longer primarily theological or religious, and thus in principle removable by conversion. Instead, it is based, or claims to be based, on racial or ethnic differences." [18]

Lewis traces development of the scientific justification for slavery and racism to the advent of the Enlightenment era.[19] In Europe, "enslavement was justified, not as in other societies by the presumed barbarism or paganism of the enslaved, but by his innate racial inferiority."[20] William Marr, the "inventor of the term anti-semitism," applied this reasoning to the Jews. As "intruders" into European society, he saw them as a threat to European culture and ideals. --CTSWyneken 13:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

CTSWyneken, After a quick scan of your Lewis abstract, my thoughts are (1) it flows nicely, (2) it generally comports to my recollection of the Lewis' article (but I would like the opportunity to compare it to his article), (3) I find nothing in it that contradicts my original citation, (4) It is much longer than my original citation and our purpose here is not to give a "book report" on Lewis, e.g., what's the relevance of the slavery issue to OTJATL, but to cite that part which is relevant to this particular article (OTJATL).
In my view, the relevant portion is that Lewis presents the view that Christian racial antisemitism predates the 16th century. This is particularly important since you have chosen to cherry pick and cite references of theologians that emphatically deny that such a phenomena could possibly exist in the 16th century in what many other editors on the Martin Luther related pages have identified as a continuing effort to deny that Luther is properly termed an antisemite. Another editor asked you, Is it really true that not a single one of the scholars referenced points out that he mentions race? I'm awaiting your answer.
--Doright 21:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear Doright, thank you for the compliment and the civil tone. I'll come back to this issue in the morning, since it is now late here. --CTSWyneken 04:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Now that it is morning...
Please feel free to reread the article. I would enourage others to do the same. Let me know if you need help getting a copy.
The reason why I did the abstract is our currently summary paragraph reads to me as if Lewis was saying that racism began with the inquisition in Spain. Having read the article, I do not believe he was saying this. Hence the abstract.
Once again you are questioning my integrity. Also, you do not know me, so do not ascribe motives to me. Please be more careful with your words.
As to the substance of the charge you are making:
  1. The quotations I have drawn are all from historians, bearing academic credentials to testify to that fact. The fact that some of them are theologians does not change that they have a deep historical knowledge of Luther and his times.
  2. The quotations are mainly to demonstrate the fact that Luther scholars believe Luther saw the matter as a religious one and attacked Jews as members of a faith, not as the members of a race. Some of these are said in abstract, others are said directly after an analysis of "On the Jews." For example, Martin Brecht does an extended summary of "On the Jews" in his biography from 3:341-346. After reporting on the final polemical writings of Luther, on page 3:351 he says: "Luther, however, was not involved with later racial anti-Semitism. There is a world of difference between his belief in salvation and racial ideology. Nevertheless, his misguided agitation had the evil result that Luther fatefully because one of the "church fathers" of anti-Semitism and thus provided material for the modern hatred of Jews, cloaking it with the authority of the Reformer." This amounts to now the tenth scholar I've quoted on this issue. He also doesn't seem to me to be trying to downplay the significance of Luther's anti-Jewish rhetoric.

So, Whether you buy there argument or not, they see no connection between Luther and racism. In fact, I have seen only one quotation by any historian that asserts Luther attacked Jews because of their race -- the one from Dr. Michael in the H-Antisemitism discussion you've quoted. It is interesting to note that in Dr. Michael's article on Luther scholars, he does not make this charge at all, even though he documents the Luther's scholars he discusses making this very point.

  1. I do not recall any Luther scholar addressing these passages you've quoted in specifics.
  2. Doright, if you can continue to use the tone of the first paragraph above, we can work together. Please cease the Personal attacks of the second paragraph, so this can be possible. --CTSWyneken 13:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I like the summary, but I have to say again that I don't think discussion of this Lewis article belongs in the OTJATL article. The only way this seems relevant is that it DOESN'T draw a connection between the origins of racial anti-semitism and Luther's time and society. The OTJATL article should exist to discuss a book, not to recap the history of racial anti-semitism. - Merzbow 17:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I feel that way, too, but Doright seems to think we need to have it. How would you reduce it to a paragraph or two that can go in the article? --CTSWyneken 18:12, 15 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] Deletion of section title: "Relationship between religious and racial anti-Semitism"

Please note the main section heading is "Influence on modern anti-Semitism." Since the article characterizes Luther's antisemitism as "religious" (about which there is little dispute) while "modern" is often referred to as "racial," it's appropriate to keep the sub-section heading that can address the question of the relationship between religious and racial anti-Semitism. Yet, the heading was deleted.

Please note, it was created by Pecher on April 26 and remained there continuously for these many weeks without objection. It was deleted by CTSWyneken on June immediately after I added the Bernard Lewis + Michael quotations that are relevant to the section.

Furthermore, the article currently contains the following quotations that directly relate to the deleted section title:

  1. "Identification of a Jew by his race is, in any case, a concept foreign to the sixteenth century." -- Mark Edward
  2. "The concept of "race" developed in the nineteenth century; to place its origins in seventeenth century Spain makes little sense" - Albert Lindemann
  3. "Anti-Semites are racists, and racists appeared on the scene much later in history" -- Uwe Siemon-Netto

For greater context compare the Table of Contents for the main section, “Influence on modern anti-Semitism,” that existed since April with the new one created by CTSWyneken. You’ll notice that the title “Relationship between religious and racial anti-Semitism” is replaced by the title “Anti-Semitism and race.”

I propose that the title "Relationship between religious and racial anti-Semitism," be restored. What say you? --Doright 19:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Support, no basis for deletion whatsoever. Pecher Talk 19:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear Pecher, Doright has not quite correctly summarized the way the current structure came about. I deleted the subheading because it duplicated the one immediately above it, "Religious basis of Luther's anti-Semitism." Doright had inserted poorly cited material under that head, turning it into a general discussion of antisemitism and racism. It separated the opinion of Luther scholars from the replies of those who see the point as not especially relevant. I corrected these errors, and, rather than delete the inaccurate summary of Lewis' article (see my Lewis article abstract above), moved the general discussion to the front of the section and gave it an appropriate subhead. I do wonder, however, what purpose the Lewis quote has at all here, since he does not mention Luther at all. After the insistance of six editors (you can see the tale above) these corrections are, for the most part, now in place.
As far as the headings, I do not have any problem with either the subhead "Religious basis of Luther's anti-Semitism" or "Relationship between religious and racial anti-Semitism," although the first is more descriptive of what follows, I believe. My point is they are redundant.
So, in summary, I'm not opposed to substituting your heading for the existing "Religious basis of Luther's anti-Semitism," but do oppose on stylistic grounds, both headings. What do others think? --CTSWyneken 20:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I oppose restoring the old heading because it implies there was a relationship between religious and racial anti-Semitism in Luther's day that was directly applicable to Luther (this, after all, being an article on one of his works). As we've seen, there are precious few scholars quoted in the article in support of that view. - Merzbow 21:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree completly with Merzbow. I was of the thought that anti-semistism wasn't categorized as a race related prejudice until after Luther's death, so the heading would be completly wrong. Thetruthbelow 21:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear Pecher, CTSWyneken has not quite correctly summarized the way the current structure came about. He deleted the subheading exactly as I said. If his reason was as he claims a "duplication" problem why did it take him 6 weeks to discover it? Furthermore, I can't find where the duplication existed in the structure prior to CTSWyneken changing it. Contrary to CTSWyneken's personal attack, the citations provided are from award winning historians (Bernard Lewis and Robert Michael). Only CTSWyneken turns it into a "general discussion of antisemitism and racism" with his edits and then give it that heading. CTSWyneken, produces a "book report" about Lewis's work that is not relevant to this article. Then on the basis of the irrelevant book report argues that my relevant extract from the Lewis article be eliminated.--Doright 21:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Doright, do you have proof of "CTSWyneken's personal attack"? Otherwise I will completly disregard all you have to say. If you do have proof on the other hand, I will warn him. Thetruthbelow 21:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Admitedly, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, so I'm sure I don't understand why it is that "Doright" gets a free pass from Wiki admins when it comes to savaging other users, while others who violate even remote Wiki policies are sternly reprimanded and blocked. It's hard not to believe what somebody told me that one must realize that on Wikipedia there are those who get a free pass on such behaviors, when directed against those that advocate points of view that poke holes in certain admin's sacred cows. I'm really beginning to believe this is absolutely true. Doright is allowed with impunity to repeatedly assail, attack, harass and otherwise abuse CTSWyneken and I find it to be incredibly disgusting. Ptmccain 22:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem may be that the current section header -- "Anti-Semitism and race" -- is somewhat bland. I think you need a header conveying more the subtlety of his writings in the evolution of racial anti-Semitism. "Relationship between" may not be optimal but it sets forth the issues better. --Mantanmoreland 13:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not committed to that particular heading. It is there solely to keep Doright's summary of the Lewis article, which does not address the issue of Luther's words at all. If we keep some sort of summary of that article, it needs to be seen as setting the table for the discussion in which Robert Michael suspects that Luther approach Jews on a racial basis and Luther scholars disagree, stating that it was on the basis of religion alone.
In addition, someone needs to rewrite the summary of Lewis currently in the article. As you can see from my abstract above, it distorts Lewis' message. I'd do it, but I suspect that Doright would object. --CTSWyneken 14:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I have to admit that I'm having some problem following the logical thread of the Lewis summary. It does not appear to refer to Luther at all as a forerunner of racial anti-Semitism. Is there a connection here that I am missing? What is the connection, if any, to Luther? Perhaps Doright or some editor from a similar school of thought could clarify. --Mantanmoreland 15:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Also I wonder if perhaps the entire article is too lengthy and too pedagogical, and does not make its points with sufficient cogency.--Mantanmoreland 16:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
If you'd like to help, we sure could use another editor here. The tone of the article comes from emotions on many sides being involved in evaluating what everyone agrees is a venomous piece of the worst sort of polemic. Perhaps someone a little less invested in the subject might help. --CTSWyneken 16:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I think there's a consensus to keep Lewis out of the article, despite what Doright wants. - Merzbow 16:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
CTS -- thanks, though frankly if it was up to me I would make the article shorter and I suspect it would not necessarily be to the liking of either side in this.
What I don't like about the debate concerning this article is how it has become so personal and stratified, either "for Luther" or "against Luther." For example, there was a wearying debate on whether or not Luther could be considered anti-Semitic. He clearly was, yet his inclusion in the anti-Semitic category remains hotly disputed.
Also I really wish there could be less back and forth on both sides about "personal attacks." Neither side is going to be able to blow the other side out of the water. There is going to have to be an accomodation.
I really wish that the spirit of Monsignor Oesterreicher were more alive today than it is, not just in this article but generally. --Mantanmoreland 16:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Much smaller does not bother me, as long as all views of the scholarly community are represented. For instance, there is evidence that "On the Jews..." was more or less ignored from the time of Luther's death until the Nineteenth century. This material has been deleted. See Martin Luther and the Jews for the beginning of the documentation of this view. --CTSWyneken 17:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, before I rip it to shreds, I'd like to see what Doright et al think of that notion. I think the opening section is fine. The rest rambles and I think the reader gets lost. It is generally unencyclopedic and the quotes drone on too long.But again, I emphasize, you may like the idea in principle, but in execution it may be a different matter. --Mantanmoreland 17:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps. But that is Wikilife. I suspect that you are willing to work with others, so I'm content to see what you do.--CTSWyneken 18:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Condensation attempted

I've attempted a condensation, but did so as a test page rather than in the article itself. See On the Jews and Their Lies/condensation.--Mantanmoreland 20:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's pretty good. There are a few points I'd like to see adjusted, mostly to do with the scholarly view of the relationship between modern race based antisemitism and this work. So far, we have only one scholar, Robert Michael, who advocates this position. We should say something like: Robert Michael... (his position)/ On the position of Luther scholars that his views were entirely religious and in no respect racial, I have quotations from ten Luther scholars who assert this and have seen none who oppose it. So the "some" is misleading.
On the connection between On the Jews... and Nazism, the Wallmann article asserts the work was largely ignored and virtually unkown from the second third of the 17th Century until the late 19th. He documents the Nazis complaining that it was so unknown. Of course, they remedied that quickly. The work is justly infamous for that reason. --CTSWyneken 00:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I suppose then I will copy and paste to the main article. I would feel better if Doright or someone from the other side of this issue had expressed his opinion. This is a hotly contested issue.--Mantanmoreland 14:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, I copied, and also went back and did teeny little usage tweaking in the first paragraph. I would like to see other opinions on this.--Mantanmoreland 14:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] So?

Is it...... ok? Neutrality tag still needed?--Mantanmoreland 19:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It is much better, but the neutrality tag has to stay for at least two reasons.
One is the text seems to suggest that a fair number of scholars think that Luther saw and condemned the Jews as a race. I've only seen a quote from one scholar, Robert Michaels, expressing that view. It also suggests that there are Luther scholars that also believe this to be true. In fact, every Luther scholar I've read that speaks to this topic firmly believes that Luther's views, hatred and vile works came purely for religious reasons.
Second, previous editors deleted information from an article that surveyed the use of On the Jews... through the century. This was the reason why the flag went up in the first place. I'd put it back, but I expect others would not like its conclusions and delete it again. Since I'm on my way out of town for a few days, that's all I can offer right now. --CTSWyneken 19:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, if Michaels is expressing a minority view, then he should be given less weight than currently. Any objection? Mr. Doright? I'll go back and see if I can find that survey, but I think I am up against 3RR at present.--Mantanmoreland 22:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Material surveying use of On the Jews

Could somebody kindly post here the material to which CTSWyneken was referring? Also I would encourage others to weigh in generally. Hello! hello...hello... (echo... echo... echo......). Hey I thought this was a controversial topic! --Mantanmoreland 23:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I cut back on the Michael quote. I think the presentation is fairer now. I don't believe Wikipedia should take a position on this issue. --Mantanmoreland 15:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[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)

CTS, woulldn't that apply specifically to the Michael quotes? I agree, the inclusion of materials from a mailing list makes me uneasy. However, this particular mailing list appears to be scholarly and certainly is not along the lines of Usenet and other ordinary mailing list chatter. After all, Michael himself is writing on the list, not some fellow quoting him. So I would argue for forebearance in this instance. Also WP:RS is a guideline and not a hard-and-fast rule. --Mantanmoreland 18:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I would argue keeping Michael for now. - Merzbow 20:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I would prefer to keep them. So I and several others fashioned a guideline to add to WP:RS it was added, but then excised by a user who claims such quotes are against policy. To me that says we are not supposed to use these sources. So, if you all think this quote has value, please join the discussion in fashioning it. As it is, I will be attacked as partisan if I remove it, so I will not. I tire of being attacked and not being defended by admins. --CTSWyneken 20:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
There was no need to fashion a new section for WP:RS. It's already dealt with by that guideline, and Michael can be used under it. Please read the guideline carefully, rather than trying to rewrite it to accommodate an edit you want to make. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course Michael can be used, under the existing guideline: Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own names, and not a pseudonym.. Jayjg (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Well there you are! That settles it I hope. I do understand CTS's concern, but this seems to resolve the issue. When I first looked at the source of that quote from Michael I scratched my head and said, "why is this here?" In crafting my slash-and-burn compromise page I was tempted to omit it entirely. However, I think this policy that Jayjg cited would apply to this situation. --Mantanmoreland 23:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see [related discussion]. --Doright 01:44, 27 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 . . ." [[2]] [[3]].

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 01:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Doright, your obsessive attacks on CTS are a disgrace. It's a shame you obviously have nothing better to do with your life than keep up these personal attacks on CTS.Ptmccain 02:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Pt, I find it easier to just ignore him. I don't believe that he will change his ways until he is blocked, so there is nothing you and I can do. Thetruthbelow 02:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I guess none of you guys see the irony in personally attacking a person because he was personally attacking other?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk
I understand what you are saying, and perhaps I could have said it differently. It feels though that this problem has gone on so long that sometimes you don't say the smartest things. Thetruthbelow 06:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoa now. I thought this point was settled. Whether it is settled or not in another article is a separate issue. I would suggest deleting or striking over the above, and people who wish to can mozy over to that other article if they so desire.--Mantanmoreland 14:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, it's closed. Please note that I have never deleted the quotation in question. In fact, I spent a good deal of time trying to support it on a guideline page. Since that support is not necessary, I'm dropping the issue. --CTSWyneken 14:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course, if user Doright has a better source for Dr. Michael's opinion on this matter, it would be welcome. --CTSWyneken 14:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that more sources generally from that point of view would be welcome. I hope that all editors will exercise restraint and avoid resumption of hostilities ...sorry, I was just reading a State Department briefing ;) --Mantanmoreland 16:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the new quote just added definitely fits the bill.--Mantanmoreland 12:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Halsall does not only mention what Luther wrote

The manner in which Paul Halsall's intro to the excerpts of the Medieval Source Book were quoted in this article gave the impression that it was only Luther's views that laid the groundwork for 19th Century racial anti-Semitism. This is not allowing the full information in the quotation to come through. As it stood it was making Halsall say what the editor wanted him to say. Halsall says that Luther's writings were part of a medieval tradition of Christian anti-Semitism, which as a whole laid the groundwork for 19th Century anti-Semitism. The way it was there originally was a distortion of what Halsall wrote. Not a deliberate distortion, I would hope, but a distortion nonetheless.--Drboisclair 20:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine, you've added the full quote and rightly so. I don't think you need to add a sentence saying what you have here is merely "part of medieval anti-Semitism" outside the quotes, in Wikipedia's voice. Sorry, it struck me as a POV push, so I removed.--Mantanmoreland 20:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that you were right to remove it, but I hope that you will agree with the last change I made. Thank you for your assistance in this. I think that you are right to keep out editorializing; however, we need to let Halsall say everything he says.--Drboisclair 21:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
This is some great editing by both of you. Good job Matt B."aka" Thetruthbelow 21:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Matt, and Shalom,--Drboisclair 21:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New TOC

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

[edit] antisemitic

I think [this ] change is unnecessary. Please cite evidence that more than a small minority deny the edited assertion. --Doright 23:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a paraphrase of a direct quote. The author deserves credit for it. Unless, of course, you have citations to more than just this author who uses this turn of phrase. --CTS Wyneken(talk) 23:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The author receives credit in the footnotes. I respectfully suggest that you consider what the article will look like after the standard you apply to the section on the Jews is applied to the entire article.--Doright 05:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
The change is necessary to have this material NPOV. Leaving it as it was pushes a POV. Why should one be adverse to identifying the person opining such a sentiment?--Drboisclair 07:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
First, let me thank you for your polite tone of voice. I appreciate it greatly. I believe we should leave it as is because the previous version implies that more than one person views the work as one of the most antisemitic of all time. I'm open to reverting it, if we can add one or more statements from other scholars that says almost exactly the same thing.
I do not have a problem with doing a similar thing elsewhere in the article, given a similar situation. I don't think it sound all that awkward and useful when discussing a vile piece of this nature. The more neutral the tone, the better. --CTS Wyneken(talk) 10:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this edit incorrectly diminishes the impact of the book by making it seem as if this is just one guy's opinion. The book was endorsed by Julius Streicher, for Pete's sake. The excerpts certainly back up that position, and aditionally that phrase is backed up internally, within the article, by the other statements by scholars. I think "widely," however, should be added, to hedge that. --Mantanmoreland 13:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I can appreciate the sentiment, Matamoreland, and I wish he would never have written this an other tracts as well, but it is not our opinion that matters. If, indeed, it is widely held that this book should be classed with Mein Kampf, the Protocols of Zion and others as the "one of the most" anti-semitic books ever written, then we should be able to locate one or more works that says such. Let's do this. Otherwise, let's just name the person who has this opinion. We do this throughout the article as is. --CTS Wyneken(talk) 13:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, so I took out widely. That should resolve the issue I trust. Please read the Wallman section below. My tendency is to remove that completely.--Mantanmoreland 13:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
OK OK. I rewrote the sentence to convey another thought that is less judgmental and certainly undeniable -- re its role in development of modern anti-Semitism. I added text in the anti-Semitism section from Lucy Dawidowicz's seminal book on the Holocaust to address that point. I'd still prefer that this article be smaller, but if it going to be unwieldy it might as well be complete.--Mantanmoreland 14:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image of a ridiculous printing of this work

I would like to take up the removal of the title page of an abridged version of the work put out by an extremist group[4]. There is no need for this image here in this article. I have bought a copy of the book to see what it was like, and I have found that it distorts this writing. The title page displayed higher up was used to print Luther's writing while this image was never a part of Luther's original publication in the 16th Century. The Wandering Jew is not even a theme in the book.--Drboisclair 07:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

David, is this book the same translation as the American Edition, or is it an entirely different one? --CTS Wyneken(talk) 10:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
It is a different translation, but it is a small, cheap, inadequate presentation of Luther's writing. I am removing the image.--Drboisclair 15:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Is there any indication of when the translation was made? --CTS Wyneken(talk) 15:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
There is no indication when this translation was made. It is a few excerpts put onto 58 pages with 14 point print. It is an anti-semitic group that puts this out, people who are too ashamed to put their names to it. I imagine that some of the editors on this website got some of their information about "On the Jews" by getting this cheap, trashy publication. I gather that the library did not get it. Good idea. THE TRANSLATION IS NOT THE SAME AS THAT OF BERTRAM, so there is no copyright vio. It claims to be a reprint with the year 2004 the only one presented as to publcation.--Drboisclair 17:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wallman quote

I have a real problem with the Wallman quote in the anti-Semtism section. A scholar at some college in Germany twenty years ago said that Johann Andreas Eisenmenger is really the "father" of modern anti-Semitism. Is that a prevalent or minority opinion? Clearly the latter, it would seem. It was originally quoted at unjustifiable length, so I cut it down. Now I see that the Wiki article on Johann Andreas Eisenmenger doesn't say a thing about this man being the father of modern anti-Semitism! Based on that, my tentative conclusion is that this is a fringe point of view that should be mentioned only in passing or eliminated completely. I favor the latter but would favor some discussion first.

Also I tried to cut down on the length of the article but it has now being dragged out again in yet another POV slugfest, and I find that unfortunate. To be frank, I think that some of the edits have had the effect, though I am sure not the intent, of downplaying the significance of this book and pushing a POV.--Mantanmoreland 13:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Wallmann is a significant historian of German pietism (17th to 19th Century). A quick google on him will confirm this. Second, the article this summary is from is available, if you would care to read it. It demonstrates from 16th to 20th century sources that "On the Jews" had little impact until the Nazi era. It is rather POV to not acknowledge that.
I have no problem with reducing the size of the summary, as long as the lack of impact of "On the Jews..." is acknowledged. If it is not, then a POV flag is in order. --CTS Wyneken(talk) 14:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
The issue is whether or not he represents a minority POV or not, and yes I thought that the extravagant quote from him was questionable, particularly since it droned on irrelevantly concerning the venue. The Wiki article does not support his view on Eisenmenger as eclipsing Luther, which struck me as indicating that Wallman may well have been using Eisenmenger to downplay the significance of Luther.
Incidentally, a scholar of massive reputation can indeed represent an extreme or fringe point of view, and the fact that he is a "signficant historian of German pietism" does not make his position neutral or fair by any means. Edward Said is a good example of that.
Also I believe that an editor who places such a large chunk of text in an article has the burden of proving that the scholar in question deserves to be quoted at such length. Please do not put the burden on other editors, and please be careful about throwing around phrases like "POV not to acknowledge that" when quite frankly, and I am sure you would acknowledge, you definitely have a passionate interest in Martin Luther, while I am just a Mick who was asked to come in to be a third opinion.
Also I object to use of your word "disparage" in the edit summary of this Talk page. I did not "disparage" Wallman; I just questioned his inclusion at such length in the article. Please do not use inflammatory and inaccurate terminology in edit summaries.--Mantanmoreland 14:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
To me, your phrase: "A scholar at some college in Germany twenty years ago said" is disparaging. If you do not intend it to belittle him, I apologize for the language of the edit. I am a bit touchy about having scholars constantly attacked every time this issue comes up. (no, I don't mean you have done this, even necessarily in this case).
Please note that I did not add this segment myself. I would rather detail his evidence for the statement that On the Jews had little effect beyond the twentieth century. When I did that, however, the material was removed. The beginnings of that approach are in the Martin Luther and the Jews article. They were here also, until deleted.
Wallmann is far from alone in that position (I can document that, if needed, next week), but is one of the few studies that actually examines antisemitic literature between Luther's time and the Nazis.
For me, Eisenmenger is not an essential point. If it were, I'd check to see what sources were used to see if he was antisemitic. I think we're all experienced enough to know that the lack of something in a wikipedia article does not mean a contention is either true or false, in and of itself.
My POV argument is to the condition of the article without the evidence of non-importance of this work prior to the 20th century. I did not or do not intend any slight on you. If it can across that way, I apologize.
Yes, I do have a POV on this matter, but I suspect you do, too. So, can we concentrate on the scholars involved?
As far as Wallmann goes, as I said above, I'm not arguing length of quotation. I am arguing that Wallmann is a scholar and knows what he is talking about. His opinion is germane and ought to be here. The editor that included the quote added his qualifications to the quotation, which should fulfill the burden to prove it belongs here. I have not, nor plan to, challenge the scholars you've quoted. Enless challenging of scholars is fruitless and will get us nowhere.
So, please, can we get to just what belongs and does not belong? I thought this morning that we had a nicely balanced article. I really would just like to go back to that and call it accomplished.
This will be all I have to say today here. It is probably wise to let passion settle before engaging further. --CTS Wyneken(talk) 15:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Removing this quotation from Wallmann, which is properly sourced shows that one may put in material that is anti-Luther but exclude material that explains Luther. Wallmann read the primary sources. He is able to see first hand the materials. He is a scholar, not a popularizing author of books that work from secondary and tertiary sources like what is on the best seller list. Removing this material is POV, and as CTS has said the POV warning is in order. I have changed the comment describing Eisenmenger, but this material is pertinent to this article. This author has actually made a study of Luther himself and the "literary history" that followed him. Removing this material is the opposite of whitewashing.--Drboisclair 16:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Why not allow the actual quotation of his words. I thought that that was something that admins like Jayjg have always said was preferrable. I think that the quotation should remain as it was.--Drboisclair 16:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not convinced the article belongs there at all, summarized or not. If retained, use of its length would seem disproportionate to its significance. His thoughts are now accurately summarized. This quote should be summarized until we calmly decide if it should be kept at all. --Mantanmoreland 16:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Mantanmoreland, you are a good objective editor, and I respect your views even if I disagree with them, but how can you even entertain a notion that it may not belong there? It is just as germane to the article as the quotations of Johnston, Halsall, and Michael. These authors only scratch the surface of the documentary material. Perhaps more research needs to be done. --Drboisclair 16:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying toss it out. Just to cut to the chase, I'm asking that the editors who inserted this material provide proof that it belongs here. The article in question is not available online, and I have no way of verifying for myself it if was fairly quoted or to determine the objectivity or bias of Wallman. Don't shift that burden to me. WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain."--Mantanmoreland 17:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
For the practical side of this, if you would like a copy, all you have to do is ask. I am a librarian and such a request amounts to an interlibrary loan request. I'll email you a scan of it. This offer stands for any editor who would make the request. If you would prefer not to use this channel, and if you are in the US, this journal is held by enough places to be easily available through traditional library channels.
As far as whether or not it belongs here, the article is properly cited. The author's credentials were cited. The scholar is easily googled. Boisclair has met the burden that it belongs here. Verifiability does not require every source be online. If it did, we have to remove much of what is in our encyclopedia and then most of the best cited materials.
At least two of the editors currently working on this page have the article in their hands and can verify the content of the summary is accurate. Unless you are saying that, unless you yourself cannot check the article, we have to remove it.
Please give us some assumption of good faith. --CTS Wyneken(talk) 21:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
No, CTS, giving other editors directions to the local library and saying "assume good faith, I have the article right in front of me" does not meet the burden of proof that you have under WP:V. Cite more sources, please.--Mantanmoreland 23:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I think we're talking past each other. What I'm speaking about is the Wallmann article. We have cited it. It is relevant because it is an investigation of the way On the Jews... was used over the centuries. It is available for independent verification. The source is from a juried academic journal. It is by a scholar whose credentials can also be independently verified. We have met the burden of proof required by WP:RS and WP:V. So, I request that you do not keep questioning that it should be in this article.
The question remaining is how much of it should be quoted or summarized and how we should characterize it. I'm willing to go at that question and I welcome your participation in that. If it will help, I will pull every source quoted by Wallmann and verify it. I will be happy to log the results of that investigation here. What I do not have immediate access to, I'll ask others to help me verify. I am willing to check the opinions of other Luther scholars and historians on this subject and log the results of that, too. I do ask, however, that you realize that such verification takes effort and I would hope you would be willing to accept that on good faith.
As far as my suggestion that the article is available, my intention was to be helpful, not to be dismissive. My offer is to help you gain access to the work, if your interested.
Before I close for the night (I think), let me say I have appreciated your work on this article . If I sound crabby, I apologize, but I've grown tired of my intergity being questioned on wikipedia at every turn. I do not think you are intending to do that, but it has been coming across to me that way. --CTS Wyneken(talk) 00:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I will be the first to say that any that questions CTS's integrity obviously doesn't know him. CTS is a man of intelligence and integrity, and I completly trust him. Matt B."aka" Thetruthbelow 06:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't personalize the discussion in the sense of "my integrity is being questioned" or (as is not being said now but has been said repeatedly in the past) "I have been personally attacked," which has beset the discourse over this article from both sides, with complaints to adminstrators and so on polarizing the discussion. It is a poor way of proceeding and it is manipulative, when used by either side.

I'm glad to here that you aren't intending to this, and I will not reherse how this has been done in the past, which it has been done regularly. Hense why I'm crabby. It would help, however, if you wouldn't say things such as: "The article in question is not available online, and I have no way of verifying for myself it if was fairly quoted or to determine the objectivity or bias of Wallman. Don't shift that burden to me. WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain," which comes across as saying I can't be trusted. --CTS Wyneken(talk) 19:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The latter quote is a direct quote WP:V. Stop taking things so personally. It is disruptive. Also, please don't insert comments within the comments of other editors.--Mantanmoreland 11:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

As for this quote, my concern is with what I think is Wallman's fairly clear bias, and the extent to which his quote represents a dominant or minority view when he belittles the impact of this book. I'd like to hear more views on that from the other side. If this is a fringe point of view, it does not belong at all. Right now my feeling is that it should be mentioned but not quoted at length, as that would seem to be unnecessary and to skew the POV. This is particularly true since he is talking about Luther's writings generally and not this book in particular.

This is certainly not a fringe view. If you remember the list of quotations on Luther's views being entirely religious, a similar one can be assembled on the impact of "On the Jews." In addition, I've done a google on Wallmann. He is very well quoted and referred to. In fact, this very article is assigned reading for a Harvard University course, taught by Reformation scholar Steven Ozment. So, thie opinion belongs here. Perhaps a detailing of all the viewpoints on this subject, which can be extracted from the article, the evidence he cites, upon which he bases his opinion should be included here. He has good reason to state this work was not widely known and not quoted from the 17th to the 20th Century. Should I include it in the article? I didn't think so, but it appears you are not willing to take my word for it or get the work yourself to check it. --CTS Wyneken(talk) 19:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Again, please do not insert comments within the comments of other editors, Usenet style. It is disruptive and makes it difficult to engage in dialogue. Thank you.--Mantanmoreland 11:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, those are my thoughts on this. I'd appreciate hearing more from the "other" side on this. Doright? --Mantanmoreland 13:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The quote doesn't appear to mention OtJaTL. In that case, it really shouldn't be given the length it's being given. A short summary is more appropriate. - Merzbow 00:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with adjusting the length of the quotation, providing a summary or crafting a new one from the article, which is about the publication history and influence of "On the Jews..."--CTS Wyneken(talk) 01:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I've asked this before but whoever wrote it won't tell me. What does the following sentence mean exactly? "Dr. Johannes Wallmann ... has argued, however, that Luther's writings against the Jews remained ineffectual for centuries because of historical circumstances." What does "because of historical circumstances" mean? What, other than "historical circumstances," could have caused his work to have effect or otherwise? SlimVirgin (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with SlimVirgin and Merzbow on the above. Given that this is not a direct comment on this book, why is it in this article at all? --Mantanmoreland 11:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The passage that summarizes Wallmann's article may need to be rewritten, since clarity seems to be an issue. If it will help, I will do a abstract of the article. If not, perhaps this will do better:

In his essay, (title and ref), Johannes Wallmann, (ascription), surveyed the printing history and impact of On the Jews from the death of Luther until its use by the Nazis to justify the Holocaust. Wallmann concludes from this study that On the Jews had little influence between the first decades of the 17th century and the rise of racial eugenics and the Nazi era.

Would those of you who have the article give your opinion that this is a fair summary of its content?
As far as to what other scholars have to say about this precise issue, let's list them here, verify the citations for the sake of peace and add any others we can find. Then, if we wish to add other opinions, we can. When I'm back at work after the Independence Day holiday in the US, I'll take a look at Luther scholarship on the issue. --CTS Wyneken(talk) 12:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Cite, then, a direct quote from Wallman on this work.--Mantanmoreland 13:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Will do when I and the article are in the same place -- unless someone else gets there first. --CTS Wyneken(talk) 14:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lutheran Church condemnation

I was just going through some of the comments and it occurred to me that there might be an underlying issue here that has not been voiced, but which might be the cause of the testiness that I have observed among some editors. I.e., that Luther's writings, particularly this one, might be interpreted as reflecting on the modern Church. That's a valid concern and certainly one that should be addressed. So toward the end of the article -- right after the lengthy quote section -- I inserted an excerpt from a 1994 Lutheran Church declaration disavowing Luther's anti-Semitic writings. I think this belongs in the article and I hope it assuages some of the unspoken and reasonable concerns that perhaps some editors may have. It's a good statement and one that I'm sure Monsignor Oesterreicher would be proud of. --Mantanmoreland 14:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur, and appreciate the sensitivity. Let's provide a more complete picture, and fuller references. Ptmccain 14:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
That is helpful and germane. Thank you. My concern is more that the work of scholars be represented. --CTS Wyneken(talk) 14:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Good! Now let's calm down and not take things so personally. :} --Mantanmoreland 14:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Good for me, if it's good for you! 8-) --CTS Wyneken(talk) 15:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and I have a further request. I will be blunt about this. This is not directed at you, but "to whom it may concern." Stop trying to get a certain user "banned" for this and that transgression. You know who I mean. Enough with that already. It just raises the pitch.--Mantanmoreland 15:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
And it would also be good to take note of the fact that if and when a "certain user" stops his harassing behavior toward CTSWyneken there will in all probability be a much lower pitch to everything concerning these articles on Wikipedia.Ptmccain 20:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Mantanmoreland, I can understan where you are coming from, but you must also realize where Pt has experienced. This "certain user" has in many peoples eyes attacked a great editor here for little reason, and has also greatly disrupted several articles. Matt B."aka" Thetruthbelow 22:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I will pay closer attention to future disputes in real time and weigh in where necessary. I've found over time that there are two sides to every story. --Mantanmoreland 01:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I see this section was extended, and I shortened it a little and probably will shorten more. I think this section is useful but it is not necessary to have a word-for-word duplication of a section in another article. Also I added a "topic sentence" to the section. It sums up the section. If anyone removes it as "original research" I am going to throw a fit. Fair warning. ;)--Mantanmoreland 16:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me.Ptmccain 20:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Bad edit summary

Sorry -- just wanted to clarify, as my edit summary was screwed up. Drboisclair was kind enough to email to me a copy of the Wallman paper, which states very forthrightly that he is responding to the prevailing view of historians, as stated. I removed a sentence in the beginning of the section which indicated Wallman's view that the Luther's views were ignored until the 20th Century. This has no place at the beginning of the article and the reference should be confined to the section where it is now mentioned. It is clearly a minority view and should not be given excess weight. WP:NPOV. I again thank Drboisclair for his assistance with this.--Mantanmoreland 18:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you have a copy of the essay. I do not recall Wallmann saying the prevailing view was that ON THE JEWS had a persistant influence. I recall him saying there were three opinions and that the evidence he cites supports the contention that the influence was minimal. Could you provide the page number where he says this so that I can review it tomorrow? Thanks! --CTS Wyneken(talk) 19:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Page 73: "The assertion that Luther's expressions ..."--Drboisclair 19:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, David. I'll review the article in the AM. --CTS Wyneken(talk) 19:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No discrepancy

There is no discrepancy in stating that "the prevailing opinion is" and "there is evidence" as I put into the introduction. Wallmann has done the research, so both statements are accurate. Please do not remove the statement re: the evidence.--Drboisclair 18:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"One scholar maintains" is more accurate. However, I think removal of this phrase entirely is warranted. Wallman represents a minority point of view, as he himself stated, so this does not warrant the emphasis you are giving by putting this up in the first paragraph. As originally written, this paragraph was stating Wallman's minority position as established fact and was a clear POV push. (I refer to the edit that I repaired a bit earlier today:[5])--Mantanmoreland 19:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, but it should be noted here that Wallmann is the only scholar who has done that detailed a research of the history of Luther's writings against the Jews going into the 19th century. What if all the other scholars are wrong? Have they done the research that Dr. Wallmann has done? I venture to say that they have not.--Drboisclair 19:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
It is not Wikipedia's role to prove or disprove scholarship. That is a bedrock principle of Wiki. WP:NOR. --Mantanmoreland 19:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Hence, it is not the role of Wikipedia to suppress evidence, which is not being done if we leave the ones who have done the research speak. BTW, as you can see I have revised the paragraph again because it is incorrect to say that the sentiments were largely ignored ignored. Luther's anti-Jewish sentiments were part of the anti-Semitism of the 18th and 19th centuries, but it is just Luther's writings which were ignored. There is a difference.--Drboisclair 19:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
No one is "suppressing evidence." However, Wiki articles are not supposed to give undue weight to minority opinions, as Wallman's clearly was, by his own words. It is not Wiki's role to take positions in longstanding disputes among scholars, or to weigh articles in favor of dissenting historians. --Mantanmoreland 19:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I would never accuse you of that because you have utilized Dr. Wallmann's research with what you consider proper characterization. I have no problem with that.--Drboisclair 19:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, thank you, and also you will note that I am no longer suggesting that this article not be mentioned at all. At last look it appeared to be sufficiently quoted. Any more would push a minority POV.--Mantanmoreland 19:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct in this because it is not a matter of whether or not any of us agrees or disagrees with the article. If it is one solitary source, it has to be weighted as such.--Drboisclair 19:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Wallmann has pointed out that this is terra incognita to scholars because he himself has not found any research done on the reception of Luther's anti-Jewish writings from the 16th to the 20th Century. This article was received by a Jewish-Christian conference. If it were in error historically, wouldn't we have heard about it? You can see how the treatment of Luther's writings after the groundbreaking appearance of the Weimar edition in 1883 and the suppression of his On the Jews in at least one other 20th century collection of Luther's works drew the attention of the anti-Semites; however, yes, this is OR. At least the "rediscovery" of Luther's writings in the early 20th century is a fact beyond dispute.--Drboisclair 19:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is OR. --Mantanmoreland 19:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Just a point of clarification. WP:OR applies to Wikipedia editors, and not to reliable sources. The point behind the policy is that we represent what scholars say. their research can be, and is expected to be, original.
Now, that doesn't speak to how much weight we give one scholarly opinion or another. This decision should be based, according to WP:NPOV based upon whether or not the opinion is that of a majority or not.
With the Wallmann article, it seems to me, we have two issues. The data he has collected that shows On the Jews... to be little known between the early 17th century and the late 19th, which is uncommented upon in the scholarly literature beyond his article, and his opinion, which he shares with other scholars, that it had little influnce, which is not the opinion of others in scholarship.
I'm not particular about where these two topics appear in the article, but I believe they both should be in the article and neutrally characterized. --CTS Wyneken(talk) 19:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I am glad that editor Mantanmoreland has come to the conclusion that this research should not be excluded. I might say that from reading Wallmann I would point out that he would disagree with the contention that the anti-Jewish sentiments expressed by Luther were unknown. Anti-Semites embraced these sentiments in those centuries while they did not ascribe them to Luther. Dr. Wallmann's research indicates that Luther's anti-Jewish works were not used in the 18th and 19th centuries and seem to have been forgotten. Anti-Semitic sentiments have prevailed and worsened, but how were they perpetuated? Eisenmenger is a major suspect in this perpetuation. --Drboisclair 20:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
His views need to be treated as they are, which is as reflecting a minority POV that goes against the mainstream view. Simple issue.--Mantanmoreland 20:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is simple. I wonder how much against the prevailing view it is, though. There is a difference between the sentiments and the source of the sentiments. Luther used sources like Nicholas of Lyra and Anthony Margaritha. Wallmann points out that there were converts from Judaism to Christianity that were Margaritha "clones" if you will. People like Eisenmenger did not hold up Luther like Streicher did as his source, and the anti-Semites in the 19th century did not either. CONSIDER THAT THERE WAS A LUTHER RENAISSANCE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE 20TH CENTURY. That is how Luther's writings became important once again. This is what we call repristination.--Drboisclair 20:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Or perhaps the other side of the position is correct. Wikipedia cannot take a position on these things. Wallman's view is the minority view of one scholar and needs to be treated as such.--Mantanmoreland 21:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
It would help me and perhaps clarify issues, if we would list who disgrees with Wallmann and in what respect. For example, do any say that Luther's works were popular in the 17th Century? In other words, what exactly is the position that opposes him? Are there any scholars that support any of his contentions that are challenged? --CTS Wyneken(talk) 22:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't think it's necessary and I think we should move on. The matter has been resolved.--Mantanmoreland 14:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
You may think so, but I do not. For example, we say "one scholar" holds Wallmann's view, which is incorrect. For instance, see pp. 74-75 of Wallmann. Haim Hillel Ben Sasson agrees with him. I will check Wallmann's reference to avoid a cited in reference, but that is at least two. As I have time, I'll go back through the subject again in Luther and the Jews scholarship, since I expect that, while a minority viewpoint, it is not a small one.
Also, I believe it is important to trace the influence of this work across the centuries. As far as I know, no one challenges the data that Wallmann has compiled. So we should include the lack of popular publication and citation of the work. Readers can then draw their own conclusions as to which school of scholarship is correct. --CTS Wyneken(talk) 15:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Not if it means giving the minority viewpoint undue weight and shifting the POV of the article. This is an encyclopedia article not a scholarly treatise,and it is too long as it is. While I realize the personal as well as professional stake that a lot of the editors here seem to have in this subject, that is all the more reason to guard against POV-pushing.--Mantanmoreland 15:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Exactly; and this goes both ways. The minority v. majority issue has to do with the conclusions drawn from the data. Do you know of any scholar who has addressed the data directly and contests its accuracy? This is what I would like to have us investigate. Re: how to characterize positions, Wallmann says that his position was the majority one before the Holocaust and is now the minority view. How should that be taken into account? --CTS Wyneken(talk) 15:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
"The minority v. majority issue has to do with the conclusions drawn from the data." Correct. WP:NOR--Mantanmoreland 17:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Glad we agree. Now, do we know of anyone who contests the data? Also, how shall we characterize the minority posiition so that it is clear that more than one scholar supports it? --CTS Wyneken(talk) 19:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
We don't agree. WP:NOR WP:NPOV. This is Wikipedia, not a religious journal. The wording as currently stated is already pitched in the direction of the "let's excuse/minimize/downplay the effect of/ Luther's Jew-hatred" POV, and does not require any further push in that direction.--Mantanmoreland 19:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm puzzled; you said, ""The minority v. majority issue has to do with the conclusions drawn from the data." Correct." I thought you were saying we are agreed on this point. Isn't the point on which Wallmann is in the minority about the conclusions he draws and not the data? --CTS Wyneken(talk) 21:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, please do not characterize my motives as: "let's excuse/minimize/downplay the effect of/ Luther's Jew-hatred" POV" That is not where I am coming from and I have not ascribed any motive to you. If you have problems with the current text, then please explain. Perhaps we can find a version that will satisfy us both as neutral.
I think we need to do two things for this article to be complete; we should replace the phrase: "one scholar" with another, since Wallmann refers to Sasson agreeing with his opinion. I intend to look for more and expect to find them, but we need only focus on having two scholars and saying that one holds this opinion. Do you have any problems with that? --CTS Wyneken(talk) 21:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The second is to summarize the data that Wallmann found in a neutral way. (unless we find someone disputing the data) I take it you disagree. Why? --CTS Wyneken(talk) 21:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Why? Because the citation of Wallman is OK as it is. This is Wikipedia not a religious journal. The article is already far too much slanted in the direction of excusing/whitewashing/downplaying-the-impact-of this book.
You didn't want to subject what Wallman wrote to a super-thorough micro-analysis when he was quoted saying the things you want. Now he says something you don't like, and you want to embark on a little Manhattan Project to put it under an electron microscope. Give me a break.--Mantanmoreland 23:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "One scholar contends..."

  1. Wallmann: "That Luther's late anti-Jewish writings have no lasting influence in the centuries following the Reformation... was the prevailing opinion during the period before 1933..." (73)
  2. Walter Linden (a Nazi) (Wallmann, 74).
  3. Haim Hilel Ben-Sasson, "Changes in the Legal and Social Status of the Jews," in A History of the Jewish People, ed. H. H. Ben-Sasson. (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1969; English trans. Weidenfeld and Nicholson, ltd., 1976; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976), "The vitality of the movement he called into being and the circumstances under which it operated had the effect that for the greater part of the period following him, and in most sections of the Lutheran world until the twentieth century, more attention was paid to the Luther of 1523 than to the Luther of 1543." (650) --CTS Wyneken(talk) 12:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. "Most of Luther’s anti-Jewish diatribes were forgotten until anti-Semites dug them up in the 20th century. To suggest that Lutheran theology turned Germans into Nazis is a false charge that simply cannot be substantiated by the facts." Uwe Siemon-Netto, "Luther and the Jews." Lutheran Witness 123 (2004) No. 4:19, 21. --CTS Wyneken(talk) 19:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

I don't think Lutheran Witness is a proper source. WP:RS. --Mantanmoreland 19:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That could go round and round. Someone might not think that H-Antisemitism, an unjuried website, is not a proper source. It is a proper source because it is a published periodical.--Drboisclair 20:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I have no doubt we will be hearing an objection from you were materials from that anti-Semitism website to be introduced. In this instance, the writer is a journalist and his work appeared in an obscure religious journal what I believe does not meet the criteria of WP:RS. That also may be the case for other periodicals lavishly cited and quoted in this article.--Mantanmoreland 20:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I haven't objected to anything from H-Antisemitism. In fact, I have searched it to provide context of quotations made from it. I make that observation to show that Lutheran Witness has the same credibility as H-Antisemitism. It is printed, and it is public. The published scholar is a reputable scholar. --Drboisclair 20:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No, he is a journalist and author of an obscure screed called The Fabricated Luther: The Rise and Fall of the Shirer Myth. Not a "reputable scholar" in any way, shape or form.--Mantanmoreland 20:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Siemon-Netto is a reputable scholar whether you think so or not. I think your slight to him is uncalled for.--Drboisclair 20:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you would not attack scholars. A man with a doctoral degree under Peter Berger and Carter Lindberg, whose work studied Martin Luther's writings, the history of his theology and how people have characterized it is a qualified scholar. A man of his background also deserves the basic respect due someone who covered the building of the Berlin Wall, its destruction, the Viet Nam war, edited major newspapers and many other accomplishments. It is not civil to dismiss him as "just a journalist" or his work as a "screed" -- unless of course you've read it and are willing to rebut his main points in print. --CTS Wyneken(talk) 20:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll say what I wish about your "scholars" and how I wish. You are not the moderator but rather very much an interested party with a vested interest in the subject matter. Stop the schoolmarmish lectures about "civility" and stop your ham-handed efforts to stifle discussion. Practice civility, don't preach it. In fact, don't preach, period.--Mantanmoreland 00:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you just have to insult me, don't you? I guess there's nothing more to say to you, then. Go ahead. Attack everything and everyone you don't like. I'll no longer respond. --CTS Wyneken(talk) 00:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Stop the false accusations of "insults" and "personal attacks."

They are disruptive and in violation of WP:POINT. I have warned you on this score at least twice before. I will characterize the "scholars" you favor however I wish, and your responses should be measured, reasonable, unemotional or not made at all.

Moreover, he is not a "scholar" by any reasonable use of the term. See below.--Mantanmoreland 01:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
That minority POV is already reflected in the article.--Mantanmoreland 14:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
It says "One scholar..." --CTS Wyneken(talk) 14:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Ben Sassoon is equivocal in the passage you quote & makes none of the sweeping comments Wallman did. The Nazi is in full support, though. He is a "scholar"? We can say, "One scholar and one Nazi says..." or "Two scholars, one of them a Nazi, says...." --Mantanmoreland 14:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Suffice it to say that the article is objective. It is the only study that examines the evidence as opposed to top ten best seller's list pop historians, who have not done the research.--Drboisclair 15:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Suffice to say the Wallman POV is given sufficient attention in the article.--Mantanmoreland 15:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
As well as Wallmann documented research.--Drboisclair 15:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uwe Siemon-Netto

His CV is on the Internet.[6] As you can see, this man is a journalist. His vocation is "international journalist and editorial consultant" as well as lay minister.--Mantanmoreland 01:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Just because he is a journalist does not take away from the fact that he earned his doctorate from Boston University, and his masters from LSTC. BTW, as I understand it William Shirer was a journalist as well. He is eminently qualified to write on this topic. Dr. Siemon-Netto is also a professor at a prestigious theological seminary, that has accreditation from two accreditating agencies, Northwestern being one. He is hardly a flunkie.--Drboisclair 03:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I would venture to say that the fact that Dr. Siemon-Netto has been a journalist should speak in his favor since this is William Shirer's claim to fame. I haven't seen where Shirer earned a degree, although I see he did go to college. I wouldn't deny that William Shirer is eminent to speak on the topic of Nazism and Nazi Germany, but unless he did the detailed research on the specific topic he is no more reliable than anyone else. It is the pedants rather than the poets that are more often right. Siemon-Netto and Shirer being journalists bespeaks well of their ability to write interesting history.--Drboisclair 03:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Point of correction: In Lutheran terms, Siemon-Netto is not a Lay Minister, a commissioned Church Worker, charged with the care of souls. He is a lay theologian, one whose writings in the area of doctrine are respected and recognized by the church. --CTS Wyneken(talk) 11:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Ecclesiastical credentials are of no relevancy whatsoever. His own CV describes himself as a "journalist" and "editorial consultant." More importantly, this POV is overrepresentated. Wallman's is enough. A block quote from the thoughts of this "editorial consultant" is overkill and is a blatant POV push to soften the prevailing view of mainstream scholars and historians.--Mantanmoreland 13:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Evidently you are not familiar with the scholastic community. Theological colleges and seminaries are just as accredited as secular institutions. Boston University is a secular college: his doctorate is not even from an ecclesiastical institution. I think that this is nidpicking on your part. Please stop.--Drboisclair 19:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I addressing the remark just prior concerning his religious credentials, which have zero relevancy outside the Lutheran Church. Please address remarks to the edits not editors. Don't say things like "evidently you are not familiar with the scholastic community." I wish I wasn't.--Mantanmoreland 19:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Uwe Siemon-Netto is now fully employed as a professor. As to your rebuke to me: You should do the same; your track record with WP:CIVIL is fairly shaky. He is a scholar, so please stop reverting.--Drboisclair 19:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Until approximately 72 hours ago, when you viewed me as an ally in this article, my "track record" with you and the pro-Luther contingent was perfect. Funny how my honest disagreement with you and other editors has turned me into your favorite target. Well, I guess snide remarks and a constant stream of ad hominems from you and other editors are better than the user page vandalism I received from another one of your pals.--Mantanmoreland 20:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Drb, SN is not fully employed as a professor. He is a journalist, as his own CV that he wrote makes very clear. He may have a position calling him a "scholar in residence" but normally those things amount to the receipt of a grant and free or subsidized accommodation. He also says what he does there is teach journalism or journalism-related topics. Please list the scholarly papers he has produced in the last two years and say which peer-reviewed journal they were published in. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV reversions

The reversion that I reverted was uncalled for. The material was properly sourced. What was suspect was the removal of it from the section that it belonged in. The unscholarly slighting of Dr. Uwe Siemon-Netto is nothing less than unscholarly and childish. The editor should stop his actions which are almost tantamount to vandalism.--Drboisclair 15:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Please tone down your comments and stop making wild charges. Comment on the edit, not the editor, and don't make personal attacks. We've exchanged many a pleasant email that suddenly acquired a hostile tone and I daresay troubling character when I disagreed with you. You were all agog over my fairness and evenhandedness and I suddenly became the Devil when I disagreed with you. Disagreement is no reason for you to behave in this fasion. Please stop.--Mantanmoreland 15:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that you are exaggerating here. These are not charges, let alone "wild charges"; they properly characterize your edits which slight Dr. Uwe Siemon-Netto. Your reversion was uncalled for, though it is your privilege. Please stop slighting Dr. Siemon-Netto.--Drboisclair 15:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Why do you assume he is being slighted by being called a journalist? SlimVirgin (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Being a Cambridge alumna, how can you say that earning a Ph.D. does not qualify him being called a scholar? William Shirer is a journalist, but he is considered a scholar with his book on the Nazis. This has all the appearance of disparaging scholars and fellow editors. I protest it.--Drboisclair 15:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
He characterizes himself as a journalist and editorial consultant, author of a screed attacking a genuine historian, William Shirer. This hardly qualifies him as a "scholar," and use of that term unecessarily elevates his non-notable book, which is certainly questionable under WP:RS. "Journalist" is accurate and certainly respectable, as is "commentator."--Mantanmoreland 15:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
When you cite WP:RS you do not know what you are talking about when you post like this. --Drboisclair 15:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I wonder what the scholarly world will think of this if they view these pages. What qualifies you making this judgment? Maybe in the U.K. a Ph.D. can be excluded from the classification "scholar" but not in the U.S. Dr. Siemon-Netto is a scholar, and Mantanmoreland is simply disputing this because he dislikes users CTSWyneken and myself. This is personal on his part.--Drboisclair 15:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Second warning in ten minutes: Focus on the edits and not the editor. Stop the personal attacks.--Mantanmoreland 15:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Do the same, sir.--Drboisclair 16:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
And you can put a stop to the emails too. I don't want them. I will change my email address if they continue.--Mantanmoreland 16:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I do not e-mail you any more, so stop saying that I am still e-mailing you. I will never e-mail you again after your last abusive hate e-mail.--Drboisclair 16:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
It was not an "abusive hate email." I was offended by your reference in a prior email to "Jewish administrators" and other such comments. If I blew my stack, I apologize, but I think that I had provocation. --Mantanmoreland 16:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Regardless, could you all please work this out here on the talk page rather than by edit warring (again)? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Impossible to have a proper dialogue when personal attacks are tossed around. That is separate and apart from the issue of whether or not it is possible to achieve a consensus.--Mantanmoreland 15:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Ditto to that, and I may add that it is difficult when scholars are slighted.--Drboisclair 16:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I certainly don't think this is either a scholar or that he has been slighted by calling him a journalist and editorial consultant, as is his own description of himself on his CV.--Mantanmoreland 16:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I have edited the sentence to match the information in the Wallmann article, thus to avoid a definition debate over who is a scholar/ --CTS Wyneken(talk) 15:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
To no avail. The queen has reverted.--Drboisclair 15:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
David, please do not insult Slim. I can understand your frustration at the attacks of Mantmorland, but do not take it out on her. She has been polite. --CTS Wyneken(talk) 16:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Another gratuitous ad hominem. I would add that Drboisclair and I have (I think) resolved the issues between us, which are largely off-wiki I believe, and that your meddling and gratuitous digs, which you have employed before concerning others, only exacerbate matters as they have in the past.--Mantanmoreland 16:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Views on Influence of Luther's antisemitic tracts

I'm not committed to the exact language used here, but I think it is important to be accurate. All the information as it stands in my version is now wholly supported by the Wallmann article.

  1. Wallmann states that, before the Second World War, the prevailing view among scholars was that the works had little influence upon antisemitism.
  2. He states that the prevailing view changed after the war to the continuity thesis, that the works did influence antisemitism from the time they were written until and including the Nazi era.
  3. He did a study of the printing of the the quotation of these works from the time of Luther's death until the Nazi era and concludes that the influence was minimal until the rise of the Nazi movement.
  4. He quotes H. H. Ben-Sasson, editor of volume on the history of the Jews, first published in Tel Aviv and then translated and published in the United Kingdom and the US.

I believe it wise to go this way and avoid the "and who is a scholar" debate that is inevitable if we don't go this way. --CTS Wyneken(talk) 16:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Let it lie. The view of historians sixty years ago is secondary. Let's give this a rest.--Mantanmoreland 16:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
It appears that Mantamoreland doesn't want to give it a rest. The article now misrepresents scholarship, hense, the NPOV flag. --CTS Wyneken(talk) 19:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
No, it represents correctly the prevailing views of scholars currently. The views of scholars 67 years ago is of little importance. Dwelling on them just, surprise surprise, skews the POV.--Mantanmoreland 21:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
CTSW, you overuse the tag. It's not meant to be used every time you disgree with the contents of an article. It's supposed to signal serious POV that can be corrected within our policies. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
To me, this is a serious issue. It misreprents its source, it gives the impression that no opposition to the contention that Luther's antisemitic works exists, when this is not the case. In my opinion, that is what the flag is for. How is it any different than Doright's flag on the Martin Luther page? --CTS Wyneken(talk) 22:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I've added a slightly reworded version as a compromise, with no mention of scholars or commentators, but just a "minority view." Would that work? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. That is a reasonable solution. --CTS Wyneken(talk) 00:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Good. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Luther Biographical Timeline Graphic

What is the point of having the Luther Biographical Timeline Graphic in this article. If a reader wants Luther's bio, perhaps they will go to the Luther article. Please stop edit warring and make your case on the talk page.--Doright 04:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Query

"asserting that the later Luther, the author of On the Jews and Their Lies, was the real Luther." (emph. mine) What does this mean? Rich Farmbrough, 14:29 11 September 2006 (GMT).

[edit] The meaning of Israel [sic] in a quotation

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


[edit] German Language Text of Von den Juden und ihren Lügen

If anyone knows of a German language text version of Von den Juden und ihren Lügen on the net, please post the link here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Repentance (talk • contribs) 16:47, December 28, 2006

I have it (256 pages). Not exactly a "pamphlet" as it was once described. Also have Schem Hamephoras (128 pages), and some others (my rough translation of the titles: "Sermon on Usury" (1520) (34 pages), "Of the last words..." (1543) (169 pages), "A brief against the Sabbather to a good friend" (1538) (65 pages), "Sermon at the Jarsztag of beschnei the dung of the Jews" (1523) (16 pages), and "Jesus Christ eyn geborner Jew sey) (1523) (37 pages). These may or may not have not been translated into English yet. Can someone check these against a list of known Martin Luther publications? Who are the experts on translating Medieval German? 72.235.14.35 03:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The documents are on the internet at Luther You must then click the Drucke button to find. GuntherB 16:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the replies. In the vernacular of the peasantry, YOU ROCK. I have downloaded each and every page for further study, and I suggest that others do the same. I am surprised by the dates and titles. This alone is a possible indication that Martin Luther's animosity towards Jews was not just a feature of his old age, as some have claimed. Also, the length of SchemHamphoras suggests to me that he was at the peak of his writing abilities then. The next step is transcribing and translating the contents of some of these, which will be neither quick nor easy. Perhaps a group effort on another web site, since primary research is not part of the mission here. Repentance 19:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What we need are public domain translations of all of these. I have also made copies of them in case they go away for some reason. Project Gutenberg is the recommended place for this type of work. The steps are to create a project, upload the files, and get clearance from Project Gutenberg to start. Then many people may transcribe the images into text, which can then be translated with translation software which produces a crude but understandable translation. The text is then edited manually, and then edited again until ready for release. After they are published, you may link to them from Wikipedia. MarthaYY 20:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)