Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:09, 13 June 2006

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

• Talk:Martin Luther/Copyright of Luther's Works
• Talk:On the Jews and Their Lies/Archive1
• Talk:On the Jews and Their Lies/Archive2
• Talk:Martin Luther and the Jews
• Talk: Martin Luther

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 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.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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 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 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 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)

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 . 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)

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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.

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."

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."

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)

Attempt to ban h-antisemitism from Misplaced Pages

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 . Doright 23:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

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 ( and ). 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)

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)

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!!! Thetruthbelow 06:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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.” 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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages... you need to find some reliable sources for this. - Merzbow 05:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

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 , the ,the 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. 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. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 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. , 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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: --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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks --CTSWyneken 12:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

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." 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. Until "relatively modern times," societies responded in ways varying from expulsion or violence to limited tolerance. The European religious wars eventually produced "a new idea, that of tolerance." In the late 17th century, the idea of tolerance grew "beyond tolerance to equal coexistence."

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." According to Lewis, "Modern ideological racism in the Western world appears to derive from two historically recognizable sources." 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."

Lewis traces development of the scientific justification for slavery and racism to the advent of the Enlightenment era. 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." 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)

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)

1. Martin Luther. On the Jews and Their Lies, Martin Bertram, trans., in Luther's Works Vol. 47, The Christian in Society, IV, ed. Franklin Sherman, Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971)
2. Martin Luther. On the Jews and Their Lies, Martin Bertram, trans., in Luther's Works Vol. 47, The Christian in Society, IV, ed. Franklin Sherman, Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971)
3. On the Jews and Their Lies, Martin Luther, Martin Bertram, trans., in Luther's Works Vol. 47, The Christian in Society, IV, ed. Franklin Sherman, Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971)
4. Martin Luther. On the Jews and Their Lies, Martin Bertram, trans., in Luther's Works Vol. 47, The Christian in Society, IV, ed. Franklin Sherman, Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971)
5. Martin Luther. On the Jews and Their Lies, Martin Bertram, trans., in Luther's Works Vol. 47, The Christian in Society, IV, ed. Franklin Sherman, Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971)
6. Martin Luther. On the Jews and Their Lies, Martin Bertram, trans., in Luther's Works Vol. 47, The Christian in Society, IV, ed. Franklin Sherman, Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971)
7. Martin Luther. On the Jews and Their Lies, Martin Bertram, trans., in Luther's Works Vol. 47, The Christian in Society, IV, ed. Franklin Sherman, Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971)
8. Martin Luther. On the Jews and Their Lies, Martin Bertram, trans., in Luther's Works Vol. 47, The Christian in Society, IV, ed. Franklin Sherman, Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971)
9. Martin Luther. On the Jews and Their Lies, Martin Bertram, trans., in Luther's Works Vol. 47, The Christian in Society, IV, ed. Franklin Sherman, Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971)
10. Lewis, Bernard, "The Historical Roots of Racism," American Scholar 67 (1998) no. 1:17-25.
11. Lewis, Bernard, "The Historical Roots of Racism," American Scholar 67 (1998) no. 1:17.
12. Lewis, 17-18.
13. Lewis, 18.
14. Lewis, 19.
15. Lewis, 20.
16. Lewis, 21.
17. Lewis, 21.
18. Lewis, 21.
19. Lewis, 21-23
20. Lewis, 24