Talk:On the Jews and Their Lies/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

...it could be argued...

Slim's asked for citations for the arguments relating Kristallnacht and OtJaTL. It's a reasonable request, so I went hunting. There are lots of different essays and articles relating the two (since a cursory examination makes the comparison downright obvious); the only question is, are any of the essayists and expressers of opinion sufficiently notable to quote? Just because an opinion is commonly expressed doesn't make it worthy of expressing. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You are right, there are quite a few writing on both sides of the issue. I think putting between one and three citations in a footnote for each viewpoint is likely to be sufficient. The point is to show each has scholarly proponents. We can always add citations to a note if we find better ones. Only if we feel compelled to add quotations should we worry about especially apt ones. --CTSWyneken 23:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Writing

Hi TTB, there are problems with the way you're writing up material. Could you please stick very closely to what the sources say? For example: "Martin Luther and his writings may have unconsciously set the stage for the future of German nationalistic fanaticism ..." What does it mean for a book to "unconsciously set the stage for the future ..."? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I thought it was clear? I didn't know what had happened to my article so i reposted it. Sorry. I will change it.Thetruthbelow 23:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

That sentence you asked about was in the first line of the quote but i moved it to be the starting sentence of the paragraph. I changed it. Is it better now?Thetruthbelow 23:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

First, there's a big difference between saying Luther did something unconsciously and his writings did. Please be careful not to change what sources say. Secondly, having said there's a difference, the former is almost as nonsensical as the latter in this context. Third, what does the quote (below) have to do with On the Jews and Their Lies? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Luther unconsciously set the stage for the future of German nationalistic fanaticism. Through his sermons and his magnificent translations of the Bible, Luther created the modern German language, aroused in the people not only a new Protestant vision of Christianity by a fervent German nationalism and taught them, at least in religion, the supremacy of the individual conscience. But tragically for them, Luther's siding with the princes in the peasant rising, which he had largely inspired, and his passion for political autocracy ensured a mindless and provincial political absolutism which reduced the vast majority of the German people to poverty, to a horrible torpor and a demeaning subservience. Even worse perhaps, it helped to perpetuate and indeed to sharpen the hopeless divisions not only between classes but also between the various religious and political groupings of the German people. It doomed for centuries the possibility of the unification of Germany.

I Didn't change what the sources said, but rather got that quote from an earlier point in the book. I personally do not believe Luther's writings had any affects on Hitler or other anti-semites, but i have been asked by others to put in an article that said he did to show both sides of the argument. But now that I read over it again, that quote does not relate to the topic of On the Jews and their Lies and i realize it should be removed immediatley. The other info i believe belongs in that edit.

I apologize for putting that citation on there, as it did not fit in with the rest of the article. My Sincerest Apologies, Thetruthbelow 23:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Who asked you to put in material showing his work had an affect on Hitler? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• I've got trouble with this one: even the people that Luther proposed by killed and pressed out of the country, the Jews, expressed their belief that Luther had not influenced others. It then proceeds to list exactly one Jew who has expressed that opinion. But you can't say "the Jews expressed their belief"; that says that the Jews, as a unit, had that belief to express. You might want to say "some Jewish authors", if you can find another sufficiently notable one that shares the opinion. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

If it would help, JP, I can send you the article, too, if you request it. --CTSWyneken 00:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

What article? Not relevant; I'm just concerned with that one snippet. I'm a Jew. I haven't expressed my belief that Luther hasn't influenced others. Therefore, one cannot say "The Jews expressed their belief" -- it's simply not possible. One could, conceivably, say, "The Catholics expressed their belief", if the Pope expressed a belief, but there's no bull goose Jew who can speak for "The Jews". Nothing wrong with "some Jewish authors", as I said. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The Wallman article that is the basis of his work today. It is the source for the material that Slim deleted from the article. He was curious, requested a copy, so I sent it to him. Interlirary loan is a wonderful thing.

On the substance of what he's done, I'll comment when the time and the article are in front of me sometime tomorrow. This eve I've only got the time for a few observations. --CTSWyneken 00:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have an objection to the current version of the edit? If so, please leave a message on my talk page. Thetruthbelow 01:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's a lot better if we discuss the article on the article talk page. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

What I meant to say was to discuss it on this page, slip of the finger. Sorry Thetruthbelow 02:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Some problems

I just tried to copy edit this but it was impossible. TBB, you added a for and against section, after a section that discussed some of the issues, as though they hadn't been discussed. Please don't make such big changes without discussing them on talk first until you're familiar with the article. Other issues:

The para below is unacceptable for the reasons stated above, and what does "killed and pressed out of the country" mean? And you need to give full citations when you quote, including page number.

Finally, even the people that Luther proposed by killed and pressed out of the country, the Jews, expressed their belief that Luther had not influenced others. Jewish author Haim Hillel Ben Sasson, for example, in his A History of the Jewish People, states that Luther's writings against the Jews remained ineffectual because of historical circumstances, and that "it was rather the Luther of 1523 than the Luther of 1543 who remained predominant in the view of large segments of the Protestant world until well into the 20th century."

You need a full citation for (and don't express it as him not having "success"):

Even in cases where it is recognized that Luther had no success with his suggestion to burn the synagogues and expel the Jews, it is still assumed that his anti-Jewish attitude exercised a formative influence on Protestantism. Franz Heinrich Philipp, for example, wrote in the periodical Ernuna in 1972: "It is true that Luther's suggestions concerning the treatment of the Jews were ignored or expressly rejected by the Protestant princes. Yet his attitude on the Jewish question continued to be the decisive factor in determining the standpoint of the Lutheran Church in the succeeding centuries, and a one-sided selection of his opinions formed a standard part of polemic anti-Semitic literature well into the 20th century.

Questions aren't filled with doubt, just as writings aren't unconscious: "The question of whether Martin Luther's writings influenced Hitler is filled with doubt ..."

Don't add that people are Jewish authors unless it's directly relevant, and what does "because of historical circumstances" mean? I'm sure that's not what the author stated. (And what else could it have been?)

Jewish author Haim Hillel Ben Sasson, for example, in his A History of the Jewish People, states that Luther's writings against the Jews remained ineffectual because of historical circumstances ...

There's more, but that'll do. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Give the new guy a break. He's new, he's working hard, he's actually reading sources, unlike many editors, he's responded nicely to fairly stern criticism, and I could go on. Why not work with him patiently?

I also find it hypocritical of you to remove other's work here and at Martin Luther, when you will not tolerate your work even to be moved. So, which is it? We all can edit live and try to improve other's work, or we leave pages in stable positions, revert text and insist on talking first? --CTSWyneken 10:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• You're really missing an important point here. This isn't a matter of biting newcomers -- it's a matter of maintaining articles. The section as it is now simply should not be there; it's problematic enough that it should be worked on in a temporary article until it's suitable for being "published". The "works in progress" model doesn't work on Wikipedia, not when there are such glaringly bad errors (like the one I pointed out above, for example). If I could have made the necessary corrections in situ, I'd have done so; Slim says the the same thing. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Then why not drop by his page a few hours before you do something, warn him you're moving it here for development, then move it? As far as the work-in-progress model; isn't that what the whole Wikipedia experiment is all about? As far as the content of his material: do you doubt that there are scholars who make the claims in it, even if they say it much better? Finally, are you trying to tell me it's OK for Slim to protect the content of a page, but not for the rest of us to do this? --CTSWyneken 17:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It's too much without discussion, and the writing is too problematic, so I'll likely be removing it again. I did try hard last night to do a copy edit, but it was impossible, because there were no, or few, proper citations and therefore no way of checking what TTB was trying to say. I suggest that TTB open up a user subpage and work on it there in draft form, and then invite us to take a look when it's ready. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

TheTruthBelow's Additions

To take one thing at a time...

TruthBelow, we need to have you cite your sources. After each major statement of fact or the opinion of an author, put a<ref> tag. List the author of the article or book, the title of the author or book (article titles in quotation marks, book titles in italics). If it is an article, follow by the title or the journal, the volume number, month and year in parenthesis, the issue number if you know it, a colon and the pages on which you found your information. If it is a book, follow in parentheses with the city of publication, a comma and then the page numbers. Close it with a --CTSWyneken 10:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)</ref> tag. Let's start there. --CTSWyneken 10:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I will do that today as soon as I return from school. Thanks again, Thetruthbelow 13:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thing is, even with the references, it's stating opinion as fact. The sentence I complained about above, Finally, even the people that Luther proposed be killed and pressed out of the country, the Jews, expressed their belief that Luther had not influenced others, is wrong no matter who said it. The Jews said no such thing. One Jew did. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That is easily fixed. We can say according to ____ (the scholar who said it) or some such. I haven't had a chance to see if this is cited yet. If it is, I'll check to see where in the world it comes from. If TruthBelow doesn't mind, I can adjust it and see if it works. Is that acceptable, JP? --CTSWyneken 00:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Remove the nonsense assertion, and if you can find someone asserting that "The Jews" expressed their opinion, explain to us just how "The Jews" can do such a thing, and it might be acceptable. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, it makes no difference to me. I'm just getting frustrated by this page, so make whatever changes you want. I'm not mad at you CTSWyneken or you JP, but I guess that this editing has taken a while and I am just getting used to it. Thetruthbelow 00:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll clean it up tomorrow. If the results look good then we're done and TruthBelow can see what we've done. JP, could you take out the D. G. Meyers quote that Slim objected to? There's also a quote of Michael from a listserv you may want to look at.

TruthBelow, why not try something a little less heated. I like your enthusiasm and willingness to help. Why not try, say, your hometown. (unless, of course, that is Jerusalem...) ;-) --CTSWyneken 00:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

--CTSWyneken 00:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

D. G. Meyers

Since I have not contested the suggestion that the D. G. Meyers quote contributed by user Doright be removed, is someone going to do this? I'd do it, but then I'd might be accused of whitewashing. --CTSWyneken 17:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

citation added

I have added all the citations that every one suggested. If you see any other problem with the edits, please discuss them on this page first before changing them, or deleting the entire article as was done before. Thanks, Thetruthbelow 00:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi TTB, I think it has to be the other way round i.e. you need to discuss your changes here first before making them, because they're too extensive and there are problems with the way the material is presented. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

For example, you added this: "The question of whether Martin Luther's writings influenced Hitler is filled with doubt ..." and I removed it and pointed out the problem with it, but you simply added it again. Why? Questions cannot be filled with doubt. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Slim, I have no problems with removing that line. I don't think it is helpful for the reasons you've described and it is a little preachy, too. If you wish, and if it is acceptable with TruthBelow, I'd support moving his text here for us to work with. --CTSWyneken 01:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It isn't preachy, CTSW, it's nonsense. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats fine with me...I was just summarizing my sources, trying to make the information move more smoothly. I have no problem with it being removed, and actually, I agree with you now that I have read it over a few times. Thetruthbelow 01:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't reinsert material that has been pointed out as problematic. Similarly with your "because of historical events" phrase, which you also just added again, although the author didn't say that. Also, please give full citations. Book titles in italics, article titles in quotation marks, publisher and date of publication. As it stands, readers can't tell which title is a book and which a paper. See WP:CITE. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

CTSWyneken told me that after the first time you cite a source you dont need full citations, just the author and the page number. Thetruthbelow^(talk) 01:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You didn't add any full citations that I could see. There's something about this whole thing that I'm missing. You go out of your way to post apparently very friendly notes to several talk pages, at the same time aggressively rewriting articles without discussion, reverting when people try to correct the problem areas, and even removing invisible questions. I asked who Alex Bein is. You've removed the question without answering it. What gives? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin not to seem rude, but you are being a little hypocritical. You kept on changing the Nazi edit on the On the Jews and their lies page, quite aggressivly as you might put it, then criticize me for doing it. As for Alex Bien,since he was the author I put a link on him as I am currently researching him. While this may result in a redlink, it will soon be fixed when I have gathered all the info. I am not trying to upset you, and you must remember that I am new and still trying my best. I apologize for upsetting you, as that was never my intention. Thetruthbelow^(talk) 01:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't remove invisible questions until they're answered. Don't remove people's improvements of the writing. And say who authors are, so that the reader doesn't have to go clicking back and forth to work out why you've mentioned someone. You must know who he is, or else you wouldn't be quoting him (I hope!); therefore, just stick it in as you write: "Alex Bain, Wikipedia Professor of History at Cambridge University, has argued that ..." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I was actually quoting him from the article that CTSWyneken provided me. You can ask him for a copy if you like, just so you know that he exists. Thank you. Thetruthbelow^(talk) 02:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you quote here the sentence in which he says it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason the Alex Bien thing didn't work slimvirgin is because you randomly removed the quote that followed, so the paragraph now read, "Alex Bien disagrees" I put the quot back in, removed the link onBien's name, and now it makes sense. Thetruthbelow^(talk) 02:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. I asked who Alex Bein is. You removed the question. You still haven't said who he is. Please write for the reader, not for yourself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I am still researching that so I wrote his name, and what he wrote in the article. What I said before is that you removed what he said, so that the article read, "Alex Bein didn't agree" or something to that sort. That made no sense, so I stuck back in what he said about Luther, and now it makes sense. Thetruthbelow^(talk) 02:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you understand now? If not, I will discuss it with you tommorow after I return from school, as I am going to bed now. Thetruthbelow^(talk) 02:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Alex Bein

We are talking about Dr. Alex Bein, previous Director (1955-1971) of the Central Zionist Archives [1], I would assume?--Backroomlaptop 03:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, would you mind doing research on him and publishing an article on wikipedia? I can't find anything about him.Thetruthbelow^(talk) 04:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

would you also mind doing Haim Hillel Ben Sasson i can't find anything on him in english.Thetruthbelow^(talk) 04:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually I would mind. I am grumpy and in no mood to write ANY article right now. Sorry --Backroomlaptop 00:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

They don't need to have their own article. You just need to say who they are in the text so the reader knows who you're talking about. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Haim Hillel Ben Sasson compiled A History of the Jewish People Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976. This is apparently a translation from Hebrew. --CTSWyneken 15:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

On Alex Bein, all the Wallmann article indicates is he is the author of Die Judenfrage: Biographie eines Weltproblems. It appears to be in multiple volumes. --CTSWyneken 15:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 12:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Move

There is no reason to append "(Martin Luther)" to this title. It is non-standard to put the author's name parenthetically after literary works. There is no need for disambiguation; in fact, On the Jews and Their Lies redirects here, preventing me from just fixing this myself. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I would support such a move. —Cuiviénen^T|C, Tuesday, 23 May 2006 @ 22:58 UTC

Just so people know, SlimVirgin explained to me on my talk page that he changed the name so that it wouldn't appear that Wikipedia endorsed this. I still support the move, but just wanted people to make an informed decision. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The name bothers me and always has. I don't really see how there's any appearance of Wikipedia endorsing the statement implied in the title; and it really does make it look like there should be some other "On the Jews and Their Lies" besides Luther's. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me, but a number of users did not like it without the modifier. We may want to check with Humus, Jayg, Slim at least before moving. --CTSWyneken 02:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Was there discussion on this somewhere that I am missing? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral... that's incompatable with creating special titles for pages so they don't appear to endorse ideologies we happen to find offensive. This just seems like an unusual case of POV pushing to me. Even if 99% of people agree that anti-semitism is horrible and offensive, campaigning against it is still pushing a POV. I'd support moving it back. --W.marsh 13:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I very strongly disagree with you W.marsh, I don't think it has a POV, and I don't think we should move it anywhere. Thetruthbelow ^(talk) 14:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't really respond unless you give an actual reason for objecting. --W.marsh 16:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

did you not understand what I wrote? I clearly stated my reason as such, "I don't think it has a POV" and therefor I disagree with you.Do you still not understand my reason for not wanting the page moved? Thetruthbelow ^(talk) 02:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I obviously meant a reason why you think it's not POV to give this page a special title because you find one title offensive, apparently. That's a POV. Just saying "I object, it's not POV" isn't really helpful, this isn't a vote. --W.marsh 13:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

W.marsh, I believe you're trying to uphold an important principle. Yet, I'm having difficulty seeing its application here. NPOV does not mean POV's are not included. Rather, it means they are properly balanced. Maybe if we look at it in the particular rather than in general terms, you will help me see it. There are two titles under consideration. (1) "On the Jews and Their Lies," and the other (2) "On the Jews and Their Lies (Martin Luther)." When the user reads the second title rather than the first, what POV is being over represented? What POV is being underrepresented?Doright 21:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a very simple case. The current title doesn't match Wikipedia convention, and should therefore be changed by removing the parentheticals unless there's a specific reason why this article should be an exception. I don't see any such reason given here. Isomorphic 22:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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

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

Racial and/or Religious Antisemitism

There is broad agreement among scholars that Luther's antisemitism was entirely religious. This can be demonstrated, if you all wish. I suggest we do this rather than an unproductive exchange of "Yes it was!" "No, it wasn't." --CTSWyneken 21:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

"Semitic" refers to more people groups than Jews, correct? I checked the Wiki page on anti-semitism and found this:

The modern linguistic meaning of "Semitic" is therefore derived from (though not identical to) Biblical usage. In a linguistic context the Semitic languages are a subgroup of the larger Afro-Asiatic language family (according to Joseph Greenberg's widely accepted classification) and include, among others, Akkadian, the ancient language of Babylon, Amharic, the official language of Ethiopia, Arabic, the largest contemporary Semitic language, Aramaic, the mother-tongue of Jesus, Canaanite, Ge'ez, the ancient language of the Ethiopian Orthodox scriptures, Hebrew, Phoenician or Punic, and South Arabian, the ancient language of Sheba/Saba, which today includes Mehri, spoken by only tiny minorities on the southern part of the Arabian Peninsula.

Wildly successful as second languages far beyond their numbers of contemporary first-language speakers, a few Semitic languages today are the base of the sacred literature of some of the world's great religions, including Islam (Arabic), Judaism (Hebrew and Aramaic), and Orthodox Christianity (Aramaic and Ge'ez). Millions learn these as a second language (or an archaic version of their modern tongues): many Muslims learn to read and recite Classical Arabic, the language of the Qur'an, and Jews all over the world outside of Israel with other first languages speak and study Hebrew, the language of the Torah, Midrash, and other Jewish scriptures.

It should be noted that Berber, Egyptian (including Coptic), Hausa, Somali, and many other related languages within the wider area of Northern Africa and the Middle East do not belong to the Semitic group, but to the larger Afro-Asiatic language family of which the Semitic languages are also a subgroup. Other ancient and modern Middle Eastern languages — Armenian, Kurdish, Persian, Turkish, ancient Sumerian, and Nubian — do not belong to the larger Afro-Asiatic language family and are unrelated to it (or, to be more precise, possibly far more remotely related). (Note, the first three of these languages are Indo-European.)

For a complete list of Semitic and Afro-Asiatic languages, see the Ethnologue's list.

Therefore, to say that Luther was "anti-semitic" would be to say that he was "anti" any Semitic person or people as a result of their race, correct? Is a Jew properly called an anti-semite when he/she does not like a person who is Arabic because that person is an Arab? This is getting a bit puzzling to me.--Ptmccain 22:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

No, not correct. It is often helpful to look a word up in the dictionary, if you don't know what it means.[[3]]Doright 18:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Quotations from Scholars Who Take the Position that Luther's Position was Not Racially Motivated

(see Martin Luther for full citations)

1. Bainton, Here I Stand, 297:"His (Luther's) position was entirely religious and in no respect racial." --CTSWyneken 21:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Siemon-Netto, Lutheran Witness: "Anti-Semites are racists, and racists appeared on the scene much later in history — after the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. Luther did not think of Jews in ethnic terms; his bias was religious. Just before his death he admonished the princes to treat converts from Judaism as brethren." --CTSWyneken 21:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
3. Richard Marius, Martin Luther, 377: "Roland Bainton in his effort to make the best of Luther declared that Luther's view of the Jews 'was entirely religious and by no means racial.' True: the crackpot version of social Darwinism that gave rise to 'racial' anti-Semitism was a creation of the ninetheenth and twentieth centuries. Luther hated the Jews because they rejected Christ."--CTSWyneken 21:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
4. Gordon Rupp, Martin Luther, 75:"Luther's antagonism to the Jews was poles apart from the Nazi doctrine of "Race". It was based on medieval Catholic anti-semitism towards the people who crucified the Redeemer, turned their back on the way of Life, and whose very existence in the midst of a Christian society was considered a reproach and blasphemy." --CTSWyneken 22:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
5. James M. Kittelson, Luther the Reformer, 274: "There was no anti-Semitism in this response. Moreover, Luther never became an anti-Semite in the modern, racial sense of the term."--CTSWyneken 22:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
6. Heiko Oberman, The Roots of Anti-Semitism: In the Age of Renaissance and Reformation (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 102:“One must realize that Luther does not see ‘a race’ when he looks at the Jews, nor are baptized and unbaptized Jews for Luther the exponents of an ethnic, racial unit. Baptized Jews belong unqualifiedly to the people of God, just as do baptized Germans, the Gentiles” --CTSWyneken 22:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
7. Eric Gritsch, “Was Luther Anti-Semitic? ” 12 Christian History No. 3:39: “Luther was not an anti-Semite in the racist sense. His arguments against the Jews were theological, not biological.” --CTSWyneken 22:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
8. Mark U. Edwards, Jr. Luther's Last Battles: Politics and Polemics 1531-46. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983), 139: Luther identified a Jew by his religious beliefs, not by his race. (Identification of a Jew by his race is, in any case, a concept foreign to the sixteenth century.) If a Jew converted to Christianity, be because a fellow brother or sister in Christ." --CTSWyneken 13:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
9. Russell Briese, "Martin Luther and the Jews," Lutheran Forum (Summer 2000):32: "We must be clear that Luther's complaints against the Jews were not against a race or ethnic group, but against a religion." --CTSWyneken 13:38, 30 May 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)

Comments

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)

The concept of Jews as a race didn't arise until after Luther's time. So this is a rather silly argument all together.--Thalia42 22:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The mistransation of Luther's work below was placed by Doright under "Racial". It does not belong there for several reasons:

1 -- It is a misquote of the Luther's Works translation. 2 -- It is also a mistranslation, which was pointed out the first time Doright put it there. Luther's word was "Volk" = "People." 3 -- It is not the opinion of a scholar, but a quotation from a primary source. What we're exploring is what scholars say Luther's motives were. --CTSWyneken 18:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Relocated text:

An unfortunate deletion from the article is where, In On the Jews and their Lies, Luther asks,

"What then shall we do with this damned, rejected race of Jews?." [[4]]

Doright 18:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm having a very hard time not thinking that Doright has a POV that he insists on pushing. Am I wrong?--Ptmccain 20:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, these are quotes from Luther, assuming these are actually direct quotes from Luther's Works and that the trranslation is correct. In any case, as I've now said twice, we are trying to correctly reflect what scholars say, not Luther's actual words. These are welcome, of course, if they are accurately reported, elsewhere in the section or article, assuming they are not already there. As far the quotes themselves, I'll check them Tuesday, when the resources are at hand. --CTSWyneken 21:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Martin Luther, "On the Jews and Their Lies," Trans. Martin H. Bertram, in Luther's Works Vol. 47, The Christian in Society, IV, ed. Franklin Sherman, Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971),

   "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." -empahsis added Doright 21:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Martin Luther, "On the Jews and Their Lies," Trans. Martin H. Bertram, in Luther's Works Vol. 47, The Christian in Society, IV, ed. Franklin Sherman, Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971).,

   "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." -empahsis added Doright 21:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

CTSWyneken, With all due respect, when you publish your English translation of Luther's Work's perhaps you can cite it. Until then, I think we should cite the one that is published, referenced to, and cited by scholars. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Also, do not move or edit or delete my talk page text, as you have so many times before on so many pages. If you want to exercise that level of control over discussions, I suggest you take your discussions to your personal sandbox on your own user page. Now please do not do this again. Doright 22:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I moved the Luther quotes put here by Doright to the article proper and retitled the section headers to help Doright avoid confusing their purpose. Perhaps CTS and Doright can take up their debate in a new section of the discussion here?--Ptmccain 19:48, 28 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)

Also, can you quote a scholar of any sort that says Luther's hatred of Jews was racially motivated? --CTSWyneken 20:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

you seem to have forgotten the article "Luther, Luther Scholars, and the Jews", by Robert Michael. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I have not forgotten this article. I am at home on holiday and away from my office, where my copy of the article is located. You are welcome to add a quote from it above. Barring that, I'll look through the article and quote whatever I find there. --CTSWyneken 23:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I've reviewed the article. Michael does not commit himself one way or the other on the issue. The closest he gets is replying to Bainton's statement that Luther's motivation was religious, trying to enforce Zionism, by saying "Even granting for the moment that Luther's attack was intended merely to enforce Zionism, i.e., expulsion, and was "entirely religious," does it make Luther any less inhumane?" (p. 344) --CTSWyneken 12:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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

His doctoral dissertation involved historical research into the life and thought of Martin Luther on the issues of his views on the Jews and on his views of civil resistance. That ranks him as a historian.

Dr. Uwe Siemon-Netto has an earned doctorate as well. Surely you are not suggesting he is incapable of objective analysis simply because he happens also to be described as a "lay theologian"? I would return to a comment I made earlier. Where does this kind of thinking stop? Am I to dismiss comments and observations from persons who are Jewish or are Rabbis but are also scholars in their respective fields of Jewish studies, simply because they may be Jewish theologians? See my point? The best thing would be for you to marshall your evidence that known Reformation historians have stated the view that Luther's comments on the Jews were racially motivated. Can you please post the quotes you have to that effect in the section available here? That would help our discussion much more, in my opinion, than by attempting to cast a shadow on Reformation scholars. Thanks.--Ptmccain 21:57, 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)

Again, if we want to play the qualification game, you are correct. Siemon-Netto actually has the academic qualitifications to write about Luther and related historical issues, Johnson does not.

But I do not think it is needed. Both are journalists. Both write both scholarly and popular pieces. Both can be classed as historians.

I really would appreciate the help in documentation. If we can survey a good bit of the literature, we should be able to decide the best language to describe the opinion that Luther's hatred of Jews was based on religion and not race. --CTSWyneken 12:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

=A Sincere Question for JayJG

I tried posting this question on JayJG's discussion page on his talk page, but he deleted it without responding, or without explanation. Perhaps he thought it would be a more appropriate question here. Here is what I asked him. I am sincerely asking JayJG, woudl you please respond? Thanks.--Ptmccain 21:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

JayJG, I've been interested in your comments about Reformation scholars. You seem to know quite a lot about Reformation studies. Would you mind sharing your background in the field? What Reformation historians have you found most helpful in your studies? Thanks.--Ptmccain 21:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Paul, backgrounds of editors are irrelevent here. What counts are the scholars cited. Let's see what folks can come up with. I'll be back in the office with my books and the library I work in. Then I'll be able to consult the sources I've been collecting on this subject and will expand this list. I'm sure others have resources at their disposal also. Let's work on assembling them. --CTSWyneken 22:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I can understand what you are saying, but since Jay has expressed an opinion that it is improper to say "most reformation scholars" I'm assuming that he has some sort of background in Reformation studies that leads him to the conviction that saying "most Reformation scholars" is an error on the point we are talking about. I'm merely interested in knowing what sources he has studied that leads him to his opinions on this issue. I think it is odd that he won't respond to the question. I do wish he would.--Ptmccain 01:15, 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)

"obviously disruptive rhetorical questions"? I'm asking you a question. I'm doing so in a civil manner. I regret you can only resort to ad hominem criticisms rather than simply answer the question. It would appear you must be quite familiar with Reformation scholarship for you to so easily dismiss the assertion that most Reformation scholars do not attribute Luther's comments and views about the Jews to racism, but to religious reasons. I'm simply asking you to share what sources you have read that would indicate otherwise.--Ptmccain 02:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ptmccain, all that matters here is which sources people cite; we are not allowed to include our personal views, so those views don't (or shouldn't) matter. I could equally well ask what qualifications you have that are relevant to writing, because I've noticed problems with your writing quality, but again, that's regarded as irrelevant for Wikipedia, which is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, for better or for worse. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Slim, come now, I'm sure an administrator like you knows not to engage in personal attacks like this. I am sure you can do better and continue to set a fine example for us all.--Ptmccain 02:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't intend it as a personal attack, but as a response to your questioning of Jayjg and others about their qualifications. When I first encountered you, I was surprised by the quality of your writing, and in fact raised it as an issue on Talk:Martin Luther. I'll look for the diff. My point in raising it again is that we have all gripes with other editors' approaches: writing style, lack of knowledge of Luther, lack of knowledge of anti-Semitism, lack of knowledge of WP policies etc. In the end, we are all allowed to edit this page, unless blocked for policy violations, so we might as well make the best of it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It is very kind of you to come to Jay's defense, Slim. I'm asking a simple question, in a civil manner. His refusal to answer is to me quite revealing. I'm sorry it has you so worked up and upset. That of course was certainly not my intention. I'm sorry you have to take time out of what no doubt is a very busy Wiki schedule to respond at all, but it is kind of you to notice and care so much.--Ptmccain 03:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You asked a loaded question in a passive-aggressive way, give it a rest.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's outdent a bit, folks! Paul, it really doesn't matter the background of editors. So, let's just drop it. What we should be up to is documenting. I'll do at least some of that in the morning. --CTSWyneken 11:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion About context swizzeling by CTSWyneken and Ptmccain as a form of harrassment

You titled this section "Discussion About Luther Quotes in the Section Asking for Scholars' Opinions," and changed the titles oif the other sections above. That is context swizzeling. Those were not the titles that existed when we had the discussion. Please stop this conduct.Doright 23:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

CTSWyneken, I continue to be patient with your incivility. Context swizzeling is dishonest. You see I can change section headings too. Please stop. When I asked you what you were trying to accomplish, i.e., "the task at hand," you declined to explain. Now you not only move the text around, you rename the sections in an attempt to make the discussion appear absurd. Intellectual dishonesty does not help build concensus. If editors can not trust your edits in discussion, how are they going to trust your edits on the article?Doright 22:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the following do not apply to the task at hand, yet user Doright keeps putting them here and objects when I move them. In addition, since Doright has a history of not properly quoting or citing material (see Request Luther's Words be Cited From its Print Source; Other references available upon request), I personally will not trust them until they are checked. --CTSWyneken 22:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

You've moved my text again. Please see WP:Civility. Other than deleting properly sourced text from the article and repeatedly moving my contributions to this talk page and attacking me, what do you take to be "the task at hand?" CTSWyneken], I too have noted cases where you have not properly quoting or cited material and even more serious violations. However, we all occassionally mistakes, but your conduct here is deplorable. To suggest I have a "history" every time you want to ignore or delete my contributions is nothing more than a personal attack. You are going to have to stop these WP:Attack personal attacks at some point or, as you've been warned by admin's before, you may be banned from editing the Luther article. Please stop before it is too late. Now, what do you take to be "the task at hand?" Attempting to be colligial,Doright 00:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Has an admin noticed the attack on me above? --CTSWyneken 22:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Now that's chutzpah!Doright 23:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record, please note that it was I who retitled things to help make sense of the discussion, not CTS. --Ptmccain 23:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Doright, CTSWyneken is not at fault. His conduct is not "deplorable", and he was acting in good faith in editing the article. To continue, claiming that CTSWyneken is attacking you is purely a call to arms, as I have noted that there is a mostly negative relationship between you and CTS. As to the statement were you said ,"You are going to have to stop these WP:Attack personal attacks at some point or, as you've been warned by admin's before, you may be banned from editing the Luther article" do you have aqny proof of past warnings from admins to CTS? If not, please desist from trying to harm CTSWyneken's reputation, and let us resume editing positevly without these needless attacks. Also, thank you PtMccain, for set the record straight on who changed the titles. I don't thank you a lot, so I figure this is about an ample time as any. Thetruthbelow ^(talk) 02:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thetruthbelow, as you requested, here is proof of a past warning from an admin to CTSWyneken. Before you opine, may I suggest that you read the talk page histories.

You will have to stop this POV pushing or you will end up before the arbcom, and they could stop you from editing these articles completely. When you're here, your loyalty has to be to Wikipedia, not Martin Luther. Your editing here and at other articles is disruptive and inappropriate. I do have a POV about Wikipedia's policies, which you are showing contempt for. I also have a POV when it comes to bad writing, and your edits to the page often result in that, because your main concern is to dilute criticism, not to write a good article. I'm sorry to write to you this way, but you have gone too far, and I am requesting that you stop.[[5]]

Thetruthbelow, now that I have complied with your request, please demonstrate good faith and You provide the links that I requested below and correct your statement that "CTSWyneken is not at fault." Also, you claim that I'm acting in bad faith when you say that I'm "trying to harm CTSWyneken's reputation," and, that my asking him to stop attacking me "is purely a call to arms." Since you have not demonstated any interest in actually reading the talk page history, here's some material gleaned from this article's talk page addressed to CTSWyneken that helps put your accusation against me in a little broader context.

A few of the many comments address by other to CTSWyneken on this talk page:

You're not doing yourself any favors with this attitude, you know. No matter how much you've managed to fool yourself, or others have managed to fool you, that this kind of obstructionism works on Wikipedia, it actually doesn't, and you won't find any serious editor supporting you over the long term, because they'll eventually get embarrassed by you.

Every page I've seen you on ends up full of hysterical instructions and accusations.

CTSW, ... You make ... the article ... look absurd.

I therefore suggest again that you and CTSW leave other people's edits alone, And in particular, don't delete or change references or the descriptions of the sources.That is very bad form. Build, don't destroy

This is disruptive editing. If you have access to so much material about Luther, as you claim to, find a quote about the book and one that sounds more intelligent. If you're unable to, that's your own fault. Do not delete appropriate, referenced material again.

Thetruthbelow, a comprehensive look at the recent talk page history shows CTSWyneken is now doing the same thing on this talk page as he has done on the article page. As is noted by others above this is "bad form," but on a talk page more like "hysteria" induced behavior.Doright 18:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Truthbelow, just ignore him. That's the best way to deal with him. Do not feed the trolls.--Ptmccain 18:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ptmccain, Truthbelow asked for "proof," in what I assumed was a good faith request. Now that I provide him with what he requested, you tell him to ignore the proof. Ignoring proof does not build consensus and calling me a troll is a personal attack. I have no idea how many times an editor gets banned before it is made more permanent. However, I suspect since you have already been banned several times, that you will be my first opportunity to find out.Doright 19:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thetruthbelow, sure, after you provide the links that demonstrate everything I said that occurred on this page did in fact occur. Otherwise, I'll have to conclude that you are just "sucking up" to CTSW as usual and that you have not actually looked at the facts. Has CTSW sent you any other documents that he told you not to show us?Doright 02:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Truth, thank you for your kind remark. I appreciate the maturity you demonstrate in this discussion. I regret that now you have come under attack, but given the source, it is not surprising. I've learned simply to ignore him. Responding only facilitates more of the same.--Ptmccain 03:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You might call it "sucking up" but I call it defending the innocent. Also I do not agree with everything that CTS does, namley how much of an anti-semite Martin Luther was, as I agree with you more in that area. Next, as for the source that CTS sent me, that book is publicly available, so if CTS won't send it to you, why don't you research it? I am not trying to withold anything from you, but rather just using the sources that were available to me. Finally, I think that you should try to be a little bit more understanding of CTS, because even if you disagree with him, he is trying his hardest and deserves a little respect, as you do in return. Thanks for your comment, and if you have any personal questions for me, please leave them on my talk page. I appreciate your honesty, and I want you to know that I am not siding with CTS against you, or trying to attacl you in any way. Thanks again Doright, Thetruthbelow ^(talk) 03:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Call it what you like, if it expresses your POV. Just please stop ignoring the facts and proofs. Regarding the material that CTSWyneken sent you during a fight he was having with another editor (that if my memory serves you also participated in), I have no idea which “publicly available” book he emailed you. I would love to read it. Can you send it to me, like CTSWyneken sent it to you? By the way, how was he able to email you an entire book? I agree with you that CTSWyneken requires understanding and that he is trying his hardest. If he could stop his attacks for even a moment, more fruitful dialog would immediately ensue. For example, see [here]. Finally, you claim, “I am not siding with CTS against you, or trying to attack you in any way.” This does not square with your statements above. For example, you say, (1) CTSWyneken is not at fault; (2) he was acting in good faith. However, regarding me you say (1) claiming that CTSWyneken is attacking you is purely a call to arms, (2) desist from trying to harm CTSWyneken's reputation. But, your NOT taking sides or attacking me. Go figure. This is certainly an opportunity to correct yourself and comply with my request, since I have provided the proof you requested. Frankly, I have no interest in asking you personal questions. I suggest you spend more time contributing to articles and less opining on talk pages. I, for one, cannot find a single word or idea in the article that you have contributed. Please remember, we’re supposed to be writing an encyclopedia. This is not a chat room. Thanks for any kindness, Doright 02:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I wrote most of the section on the Impact of Nazi Idealogy, but obviously you didn't check the page history. My name appears 57 times on that history page, but obviously you didn't count that either. Try researching before playing the smear game. Thanks Thetruthbelow ^(talk) 06:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It’s fine with me if you want to take credit. Which citations were provided by you?Doright 08:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

First let me apologize for my statement regarding taking sides. I have gone over it, and realize that it was not a correct choice of wordage. Second, on the matter of the text that CTS sent me. He sent me it via interlibrary loan, therefore I can not send it to others. He also only sent me articles from the book, not the entire book itself. Third, can you explain your statement that my previous entry, "expresses your POV"? Fourth, I have contributed largely to Wikipedia, with over 750 edits from my first one a month ago. And finally, I know this is not a chat room, and my request for the personal questions was for me to better understand the obvious disagreement we are having, and also to possibly resolve it there. Thanks, Thetruthbelow ^(talk) 04:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Your "choice of wordage" is fine. It’s your ideas, as I pointed out, that are contradictory. What’s the big secret? Others and I have asked you what text he sent you. Again, what text did he send you? What articles did he send you? What book did they come from? Are you going to return them to CTSWyneken? May I ask what grade you are in? You have answered none of my questions. Yet, you ask questions like: "do you have aqny (sic) proof of past warnings from admins to CTS? If not, please desist from trying to harm CTSWyneken's reputation." I previously answered you above and gave the link. What are you now going to do with the proof, other than claim a mistaken "choice of wordage?" BTW, Ptmccain pointed out that he was involved in the context swizzeling.Doright 08:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Page numbers missing from new notes

New quotations have been added to the article without pagination. To make these complete citations, would someone please add the page numbers. --CTSWyneken 17:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of Listservs at WP:RS Talk

Dear fellow editors: I've invited discussion of the reliability of this kind of resource on the talk page of WP:RS. Please drop by and comment. --CTSWyneken 18:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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 04:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Would Someone Archive this Page?

It appears that user Doright does not like my archiving this page. Would someone do it for me? The material here now duplicates Archive 2. --CTSWyneken 10:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 03:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll do it. It seems that there is a pause from 4/27/06 to 5/8/06 without talk?? I can't believe it. I will look at the edit history first. --Tom 16:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The history shows no edits but it still looks funny. Was this page locked down or something maybe. --Tom 16:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)I am a newbie so I am not sure how to