Talk:On the Jews and Their Lies/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Rewrite

I'm about to start a rewrite of this to try and turn it into a narrative rather than a series of claims and counter-claims.

I have a question about the point of this sentence in the lead: "A minority view states that Luther's anti-Jewish writings were largely ignored in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, before being embraced by antisemites in the twentieth century." I can see it was added by people wanting to defend Luther, but I'm unclear what difference it makes. I'm not sure anyone is arguing that there was a continuous chain of influence — and so what if there was, or wasn't? — so this sentence is a bit of a non-sequitur. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That was a compromise sentence that I thought you had constructed. How would you reconstruct it in order to make it NPOV? I would hope that Wallmann's research on the subject might not be removed since he is the only one who researched the effect of Luther's writings against the Jews from the 16th through the 19th centuries.--Drboisclair 19:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, to start with, the summary is slightly inaccurate. Wallmann asserts that Luther's later writings were largely ignored from the Seventeenth to the Nineteenth century. The reason we should include it in some form is that it goes to the argument made by a number of Luther scholars that Luther's writings were not the cause of the Nazi "final solution," but were exploited by them to bolster their cause. For this reason, Wallmann's view should somehow be included in the text of the article. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 19:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Please name and quote one scholar who argues that Luther was "the cause of the Nazi final solution." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that Slim Virgin's desire with respect to this article is needed in order to make it more in keeping with encyclopedic style, and I admire SV's editorial work in all candour.--Drboisclair 20:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for an overstatment of the view that Luther is in some way responsible for Nazi Germany. Wallmann's summary of the evidence is supportive of the minority position, which is the only observation I'm trying to make. I would like to see it represented in some way in this article. That is my only point here. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 22:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

SV, I am probably the least-versed here on the general subject (after all, I was asked to comment because I am not an editor on this article), but my impression always was that the "Final Solution" came out of the long-standing and sometimes suppressed general anti-Semitism of Europeans at the time, rather than of any particular attitude or teaching of Luther's. After all, the Nazi hierarchy framed the Final Solution, but being able to carry it out depending on many, including some in countries such as Poland and France who delivered Jews to the Final Solution but were hardly Lutherans. -- Cecropia 05:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The point, I believe, is that Luther's attitude is a part of that general European anti-Semitism, and that his works in Germany found fertile soil in which to flourish, helped to legitimize and further the spread of anti-Semitism, and, ultimately, were useful as Nazi propaganda. No one is excusing the Nazis on the basis that Luther thought of it first, just as no one would excuse Luther on the basis that there were other anti-Semites; that's a straw-man argument set up by those who wish to minimize Luther's culpability. - Nunh-huh 05:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright Infringed Page Again Linked to this article

A link has reappeared in this article that is in direct violation of WP:COPYRIGHT, and should be reverted immediately. By comparison with the Reactor-core.org page and this page it is apparent that this is the same type of copyright infringement. (removal of links to copyright infringed pages as per WP:COPYRIGHT). --Drboisclair 13:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC) The second link no longer links to the infringed page.--Drboisclair 01:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

How do you know that the contents of that link are sourced from the Fortress book?

I guess the Reactor-core page has been taken down in the light of the violation brought to their attention.--Drboisclair 01:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Reactor core link still works.--Mantanmoreland 01:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Great! Well, then it can be seen that the two texts are the same and alike copyright infringements.--Drboisclair 04:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Now Reactor core is a reliable source ? In any case, have you gone through both entire texts word for word to confirm your assumptions? I admit I have not. -Doright 05:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The Fordham website says of the copyright status of its texts: "Some of the recently translated texts here are copyright to the translators indicated in each document. These translators have in every case given permission for non-commercial reproduction." [1] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The Fordham site says the content comes from the author of the Fortress book. It seems reasonable to believe this content is copyrighted by Fortress. In any case, Fortress is contacting Fordham for a takedown of such content. David.Monniaux 06:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I admit I'm totally ignorant of the matters here (first time I heard of this Luther text) and I'm only acting as a volunteer following from a complaint by a copyright holder. However, I have a naive suggestion. This text is four centuries old, and somewhat famous. There must be several good 19th century translations, no? Why not try to find a public domain translation in old books in a library, instead of trying to lift modern ones from web sites?

Apologies if this is too naive and I'm missing an essential point. David.Monniaux 07:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

David, am I correct in saying that Augsburg Fortress has asserted copyright over these versions of the book and has requested we remove the links? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 10:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is correct, and the reason is that this translation is fairly recent (copyrighted in 1971 according to the Fortress person). This is why I suggest people go look for 19th century translations. David.Monniaux 12:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be nice -- if there was one. According to the translator, however, no complete translation of the work was made into English before this one. The only other one I've seen is 50 pages from the 1940s.

So, I suggest someone remove the links in accordance with Wikipedia policy. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 13:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm making enquiries as to whether the translator held the copyright, which is what the Fordham University site claims. Otherwise, it looks like we may have to translate it ourselves, then we can upload it to wikiquote. We should do that with the original German text in the meantime. What happened when you contacted Halsall? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think at least some of WA is online at books.google.com. I could look and see if this text is there. I have been unable to find Halsall himself. No one at Forham I talked to when this issue last came up knew where he was. He had left Forham for the University of North Florida, where all I can tell is he resigned for personal reasons. If we can get a recent email for him, I'd be willing to try again. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 14:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have what appears to be a recent e-mail address for him, and I've written to him. No response yet. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm making enquiries as to whether the translator held the copyright, which is what the Fordham University site claims. My experience with publishers is that they demand that authors assign copyright to them.

I find it hard to believe that a work by Martin Luther (we're not talking of some obscure theologian here) was not translated to English before the second half of the 20th century! David.Monniaux 13:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Most books that I have are copyright by the author, not the publisher. If Bertram held the copyright, and gave written permission, that should settle the matter for Fordham and us. --Mantanmoreland 15:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, interesting. This is a bit offtopic, but could you tell me more about this through my talk page? Be it Elsevier, Springer Verlag or others, I've always been asked to sign a copyright transfer form when I published scholarly content. David.Monniaux 22:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Most books that I have aren't scholarly, David my friend (isn't that obvious?). As I said on your talk, I was referring to ordinary books you find in a book store, not academic texts or scholarly works.--Mantanmoreland 01:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Luther's works are voluminous, they are contained in over 100 quarto tomes that constitute the Weimar Ausgabe. The largest collection of English translations to date of Luther's Works was the American Edition in 55 volumes (the last being the index), which is only a fraction of the entire body of work. It is a wonder that more of him wasn't translated. 30 years ago I told a professor that I would translate all of Luther's works that weren't in the American Edition. The professor chuckled, and told me that that was a greater task than I imagined.--Drboisclair 13:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Search for Digital Online Text of Von der Jüden,,,

I've done a quick search of books.google.com for the Weimar Ausgabe text with no luck. Göttingen Universität has a form that allows a request that they digitize it. I suppose we could do that, but it would likely take awhile. I'll take stab at it later this week and next and see if I fare better. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 14:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've still had no luck in finding the text online. I'm willing to scan the WA version a few pages at a time as the time permits and place it in Wikisource, providing it can handle images. Does anyone know if that's possible? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 16:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

There are already all 141 images already scanned. I have them either in a pdf document or in 29 separate pdf documents. I also have the full compliment of scans as separate files. To my thinking if the printed WA text is in public domain, one could upload all 141 images onto Wikipedia via the "upload file" page.--Drboisclair 17:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have the volume copyright page? If it is before 1923, then there is no problem. If afterward, we will want to remove the apparatus. The text itself is PDF, and, I would guess, not subject to much variation. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 18:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, volume 53 is copyright 1920, so we would not have to omit the apparatus!--Drboisclair 21:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's post it, then, on wikisource. Then folks can team translate the thing under GNU licence. Does anyone know if Wikisource will take PDFs? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 02:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

I've opened a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Copyrights. To put it briefly, my position is that we should refrain from linking to blatant copyright violations, but that pursuing the copyright status of questionable or marginal off-site links - which we aren't even responsible for the content of - is a waste of Wikipedians' time and effort that could better be spent elsewhere. We are not responsible for policing the entire Web, or even endorsing the content of every single external link in every article on Wikipedia. *** Crotalus *** 23:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A question I have to Wikipedians, who have been with the website longer than I, is: "Do you sense or understand Wikipedia to be making a stronger effort lately to keep from violating copyright laws?" I have noticed that there has been a concerted effort to remove copyrighted images that have been uploaded without the permission of the copyright holder.--Drboisclair 02:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a little point. In the case of the links that I deleted (I don't know whether you're referring to that and to other events), the action was in response from a message from the publisher of the book from which the text was taken to the Wikimedia Foundation, demanding that the links should be removed. See OTRS.

For DrBoisClair: I'm around since 2003, and at that time, little attention was paid to image copyrights. However, later, things got more serious, especially since, as Wikipedia became better known, people had taken to the habit of going to news sites and uploading press photographs from these — I've even seen people tagging "own photos" some web vignettes with © BBC written in the corner! David.Monniaux 22:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

David.Monniaux], based upon your description of the OTRS ticket, it appears that Fortress has claimed a copyright interest on the "excerpts" page that has their name [2] ;but has not claimed a copyright over the contents of this page which is sourced to Martin Bertram with no mention of Fortress.[3] Is that correct? -Doright 02:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This second link is broken: the content has obviously been removed by the fordham.edu site, probably following from the Fortress complaint. David.Monniaux 07:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

David.Monniaux, all links are working, none are broken. Since I can not see the OTRS ticket, I'm still wondering, "Is that correct?" -Doright 16:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook2.html#ref2 now states the following: "On The Jews and Their Lies", a treatise by Martin Luther (translated by Martin H. Bertram, Luther's Works, Vol. 47: The Christian In Society IV, ed. by Franklin Sherman (c) 1971 Fortress Press, pages 121-306) has been removed because of copyright objections. We will attempt to provide a new translation of the German text at some point, but meanwhile welcome a translation any scholar wishes to supply."--CTSWyneken^(talk) 18:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be nice if someone could ask Fortress about the 2004 edition from "Liberty Bell Press." If indeed some neo-Nazi publisher is cashing in on their property, that should be stopped. Or, alternatively, if it is a public domain translation, that should be determined. --Mantanmoreland 22:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If I could lay my hands on it, I would check the text. Can you tell me where you found the copy? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 02:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Amazon.com.--Mantanmoreland 03:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll run a search for it there. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 12:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Could this possibly be the first one that comes up when you do a search on Amazon.com? The one with that horrible picture on the front of "the wandering Jew"? If that is the one, I obtained a copy over a year ago to see what it was--it was rather cheap--, and I have discovered that it is a different translation than that of Martin Bertram. It is only a translation of a small portion of the treatise. There is no translator given in that book. Is it the same one that all of you are discussing?--Drboisclair 13:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

(restoring indent)Yes, that is it. From a wretched little publisher. So as I suspected, there seems to be another public domain English translation out there.--Mantanmoreland 13:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily public domain. It depends on when it was first published. If it was sometime since 1976, it is copyrighted. Practically speaking, if it is not a complete version, it really doesn't help the current state. It is fair use to include quotations from the AE edition, providing it isn't a large section of the work. The most practical answer is to do what Fordham did -- solicit a translator. I suggest we take steps along that path by posting the German edition that DRBoisclair has to Wikisource and then find volunteers. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 15:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree about uploading the German edition and finding volunteers. However, it might save time and energy if there is a pub domain translation out there, somewhere, which is why I have been interested in this neo-Nazi publisher's translation and its source. --Mantanmoreland 15:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland, believe me, this is maybe only about 15 pages at most, and it does not really translate the main points. I was disappointed with it. I did notice that it wasn't the Bertram edition. It isn't even 10% of the material. What is also not helpful is that no one takes the credit for translating it. That is what I can remember of it here at home. I will go over to my office and get more specific information. It is a really disappointing waste of money. I just got it because I was curious as to what it was. I will post more when I have it in hand.--Drboisclair 20:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Yes, please tell us more once you have a copy of it in hand. Is it a valid translation otherwise? Is there any internal evidence as to whether this is a Bertram ripoff? Thanks.--Mantanmoreland 13:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) This morning I found the pamphlet, and I am going through it to see exactly how much it omits. The ISBN number is 1-59364-024-2, and the copyright page reads: "Reprinted 2004 by Liberty Bell Publications". There are 50 pages of translation of On the Jews: the pamphlet is 70 pages and I bought it about a year ago from Amazon.com for $5.95 plus shipping. The translation of portions of On the Jews cover pages 8-58. At some points they summarize what Luther wrote in bracketed sentences. It is definitely NOT the Bertram translation. Notice the difference:

Bertram's first two sentences: "I had made up my mind to write no more either about the Jews or against them. But since I learned that these miserable and accursed people do not cease to lure to themselves even us, that is, the Christians, I have published this little book, so that I might be found among those who opposed such poisonous activities of the Jews and who warned the Christians to be on their guard against them" (Luther's Works, 47, 137).

Liberty Bell publication: "I had decided not to write anymore, neither of the Jews, nor against the Jews. Because I have learned, however that those miserable, wicked people do not cease trying to win over to themselves us, that is, the Christians also, I have permitted this booklet to go forth that I might be found among those who have resisted such poisonous undertaking of the Jews, and have warned the Christians to be on their guard against them" (The Jews and Their Lies, p. 8).

If anyone has any questions about this book, they could post them here.--Drboisclair 00:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

New Link in Eternal Links of this article

This new link [4] is almost the exact same thing as the Liberty Bell Publications pamphlet being sold on Amazon.com. It is not the complete English text, and the translator is not identified. Do we still want to have the article linked to it? There might not be a copyright issue.--Drboisclair 18:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Good! Thanks for tracking it down and linking. The translation has no claim of copyright, evidently. It might be interesting, just out of curiosity, to determine its origins, but that is just idle curiosity.--Mantanmoreland 18:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If you download it, you will be able to save $9.00. It is exactly the same as the Liberty Bell Publications book. The only difference with the Liberty Bell Pub's book is that it has printed antisemitic pictures. Now perhaps one can see where Liberty Bell got their document for reprint. There is no publication date. Download it and save! lol.--Drboisclair 19:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and $9 less to a publisher dedicated to promulgating anti-Semitism. Good deal.--Mantanmoreland 00:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an article about a book

Accordingly, we now have this on it:

Main article: Martin Luther

. --Ludvikus 14:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The tag is unnecessary. There is no copyediting issue here, and other words have been added that make it jumbled and confusing. Tbis article is intended to explore this significant book in detail. If more needs to be added to the main article, it should be discussed there. I removed, and forgive the double negative in the edit summary.--Mantanmoreland 17:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I take your word on it (the non-necessity). In was just concerned that this article not duplicate Martin Luther. I certainly agree that this is an article on a Book, not on Martin Luther.

On an other issue, shouldn't "their' begin with a capital, so: "Their"? That really bothers me, as I pay careful attention to Book titles. The alternative is to change "Lies" into "lies" (Library of Congress Format - but I don't like that.

Best, --Ludvikus 17:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The Genious in me solved this Problem too. The trick is to Cut & Paste, and to Move not only the Article, but the Discussion as well. In passing, I note that it was User:SlimVirgin who created the obsticle for us. --Ludvikus 18:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss this before engaging in any move. This article has a long history and many editors who may want to weigh in on the title issue. --Mantanmoreland 18:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

More to the point, cut-and-paste moves are unacceptable. There's a proper way to do this, and if it's decided to do so, an admin will need to participate. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Sorry guys, I thought I did it right. I stand corrected. My apologies.

Now I know the rule for certain - in part because the last editor is also someone I know as such for quite a bit of time.

Now as to my simple issue: all I wanted to do is change the "t" into a "T." Does anyone object to that? --Ludvikus 18:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

---

In Cyberspace, I guess, it's practice to confess one's crime: I also MOVED the Discussion page. So that (it seems) preserved the history - or saw I thought & think.

But anyway, my point is this: now the "article" has "their" ["t"] while the "Discussion" has "Their" ["T"]. So how is that to be fixed? --By the way, in the Cyberspace of Wikipedia, it seems, all crime are reversible - I guess because there's always a "hyperpaper" trail always left behind. --Ludvikus 19:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

On the Jews and their Lies & On the Jews and Their Lies

Just to make things clear. We need ac cleanup. My effort at it (just to switch "t" & "T") resulted in a much bigger mess.

Also, please do not overlook the Talk/Discussion page for t v. T. --Ludvikus 19:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

---

User:SlimVirgin did a REDIRECT on the latter to the former. So I've asked for his/her input - on "t" v. "T". Ludvikus 19:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It's the truth/Truth

Just to hammer the point home - I'm not lying. Or should I say Lying? Ludvikus 19:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Incoming links

• I have cleaned up several incoming double redirects. Anthony Appleyard 14:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

But

Jesus was a Jew. Why'd Martin Luther write On the Jews and Their Lies?--Angel David (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This talk page isn't the place for such a discussion. Andareed (talk) 03:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course, Luther also wrote That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew : [5] Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 19:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Read the article mate, he was against the religion of judaism, not the race.58.107.172.142 (talk) 13:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Removal of the Lutheranism Template

I think that it mischaracterizes Lutheranism to have the Lutheranism template placed on this article. Lutherans have repudiated this work of Martin Luther, and it is an insult to them to associate them with it. I say the template should be removed.--Drboisclair (talk) 05:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

A further thing to consider is that this article is not about Lutheranism at all. This document is not a document that characterizes Lutheranism, nor does it set forth the doctrines of Lutheranism. Putting the Lutheranism template here implies that Lutheranism is antisemitism. Just because Luther wrote this horrible treatise does not mean that it is a treatise of Lutheranism.--Drboisclair (talk) 06:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the bottom of the page you can see that the Luther template has been added down there as that is relevant to this article. The Lutheranism template is not.--Drboisclair (talk) 06:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

edit conflict

Did you just wake up and notice that it was there? Lutheranism has been on article for 1 year. Why remove it now, since it has apparently been okay with you for a year? You now unilaterally remove it without discussion . . . which is fine. However, after I restored it to the consensus version, you immediately revert. I suggest you review WP:CCC, and then revert yourself and endeavor to persuade us with reasoned argument, not disruptive revert wars that have been your trademark. Doright (talk) 07:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly part of its history. You can't deny history. Doright (talk) 07:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It is part of Martin Luther's history NOT of the history of Lutheranism. However, our repudiation of this shameful work could be considered a link to Lutheranism. You know as well as I do that it does not matter if something has been in an article for 1 year or 100 years. If it is irrelevant, it should be removed.--Drboisclair (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You must admit that at times you have engaged in revert wars as well, though not recently.--Drboisclair (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the presence of the Lutheranism template on the page "implies that Lutheranism is antisemitism." That seems a bit of a stretch. The template is a navigational tool not a taxonomic device. You are robbing readers of this article of the tool to learn more about Lutheranism and you are robbing the users of the template the opportunity to learn about the article. Is it really true that having the template on the article means that Wikipedia is claiming that Lutheranism endorses antisemitism? Also, do you know if there is a something like a history of Lutheranism template? That might be a good compromise. Doright (talk) 04:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that that is a good idea about having a history of Lutheranism template. If one would make a case for having the Lutheranism template in this article, one could make a case for having the Christianity template in this article. The only connection between Lutheranism and this article is a cursory one in which there are the Lutheran church bodies, which have denounced this work. I am speaking "from the inside," and I can say that this writing of Luther is not an aspect of Lutheranism itself. Lutherans do not know of its existence through their growing up in the Lutheran church. I was a college graduate before I learned about this work, and I am a lifelong Lutheran. You could also make a case for putting the Judaism template on this page with as much reason as you would have for putting the Lutheran template on it.--Drboisclair (talk) 07:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Westerholm paragraph

I would like to see someone give the source for Stephen Westerholm's views as I think that they are important, and I would like to read more of what he wrote. Also, I have added Martin Brecht's evaluation. This is an important view since Luther scholars that taught me said that Brecht "read Luther through," which means that he understood Luther very well. Martin Brecht has a whole section of his third volume that deals with Luther's writings on Jewish people.--Drboisclair (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Antisemitism

Considering this page is intended, obviously, to be a part of the larger category of Antisemitism, may I put the antisemitism template box up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.62.179.70 (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Murder?

In one place the article claims that Luther "seems to advocate" murder of the Jews and in another place that Luther "urged" it. Which is correct? Rammer (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems to advocate is technically correct, as noone can truly know the motives behind Martin Luthers writings. However, they may be interpreted as "urges" or "urged", But that would be completley up to the individuals discretion. Seems to advocate is a broader, more 'open to interpretation' sense, so leave it as it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.164.199.67 (talk) 12:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This and Martin Luther and antisemitism

Is there a good reason this article is basically a copy and paste of Martin Luther and antisemitism? As it is, this article may as well just be a section of that one, as it doesn't seem to have any actual, unique content. RobertM525 (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this book by Luther deserves its own entry here, but I agree that most of the article now is about Luther's antisemitism. This book isn't really covered or explained in any way. It contains a large section on apologetics—Luther using the Jewish Scriptures to explain why he thinks Judaism is wrong. Then, his charge of Jews being a "whoring people" is a quote from Jewish Scriptures, where God himself speaks of himself metaphorically as the rightful husband, and calls straying away from himself "adultery" and "whoring". See Hosea ch. 2 for an example of such a comparison (a not very harsh one, there are worse). So, Luther's thought should be framed with the Bible itself, as the Jewish holy books were the first to talk of Jews as a whoring people.

We should also (briefly) contract Luther with the thoughts of the time—what did other non-Jewish people say of the Jews? Did they say better? worse? the same? I haven't read all of it and I don't agree with much that I've read, but this article does not do justice to the book. So, someone with time please change that.– Tintazul ^msg 08:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

This article is horrible

I don't know anything about this subject and I don't care much about it because I'm not Jewish or Lutheran. But the article seems horribly biased to me. It's little better than hate-speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.141.8 (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. What seems biased to you must be treated as canon and moreover eternal truth. You are, after all, Most important person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.186.149.152 (talk) 18:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Linking to the Bertram Translation of On The Jews

We seem to be linking to an infringing copy again. We should not be. See [[6]]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by CTSWyneken (talk • contribs) 18:40, 30 March 2012‎ (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

just a little bit of prejudice, maybe?

Is any and all criticism of the Jews "Antisemitism"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.113.68 (talk) 03:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

No, but this treatise most unambiguously was. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Mandated removal of Category:antisemitism

Per Wikipedia policy as it exists on Category:antisemitism, which was recently reviewed by an RFC, "[This category] must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly antisemitic". Books are a form of media. Everything on Wikipedia is just an allegation (see: WP:TRUTH). If editors here oppose the current consensus, please take it up at Category talk:Antisemitism per WP:CCC. I otherwise have a lot of de-categorization work to do, but will eventually circle back around. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Burn down synagogues.

Within the article there are some sly discrepancies when editors are taking excerpts from the book.

Martin luther clearly states that the synagogues and schools should be burned down. Nowhere in the book does it every state "avoid".

Im changing it to the true words of luther. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.64.39 (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

• Talk:Martin Luther and the Jews/Religious or Racial Antisemitism
• Talk:Martin Luther and the Jews

Luther's reasoning conspicuously absent from article

The article only focuses on Luther's "solutions" for what to do with the Jews but neglects to mention anywhere WHY he felt this way. The only reason touched upon is because they rejected Christ, but I'm guessing Luther may have had more to say than that in a 65,000 word treatise. Why not include some of the actual substance of what he wrote instead of making readers guess? 64.223.239.230 (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I came here to say this. I suspect that no one wants to be the person to add Luther's reasoning, but the article should certainly contain it. The current tone of this article goes beyond excluding his reasoning, too. Seemingly, it is spent presenting the most sensational and bigoted quotes. I'm going to add a template. Exercisephys (talk) 06:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Why do you assume Luther's hatred of Jews was based upon reason? If this article is to be faulted for something I would think it would be for failing to provide an adequate flavor of Luther's invective (for a sample, see here). This article certainly doesn't present the most sensational and bigoted ones. - Nunh-huh 06:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nunh-huh: It's possible that Martin Luther published 65,000 words of psychotic incoherent ranting about genocidal carnage. I haven't looked at an actual copy of this (have you?). However, knowing that Martin Luther and other Protestant theologians tend to rely heavily on (sound or otherwise) logical arguments and (at least purportedly) coherent reasoning, I sort of doubt that what this article presents is the extent of the work.

Also, your rebuttal to my suggestion that this was a list of particularly horrid quotes was to link me to a slightly longer list of slightly more horrid quotes.

I think it would be useful to get a religion scholar who has actually read this work to contribute. I have some academic background in religion, but not enough to be too confident in contextualizing this.

To make my complaint more specific, I think this article is poor in cultural and religious context and justification. We need more of it, and it needs to be in the intro. We manage to have reasonably objective articles about serial killers and despots on Wikipedia, and we can manage it for treatises like this as well. Exercisephys (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

That seems like a good goal. In terms of this article's development, part of the reason it is in its current state is that a prominent Lutheran clergyman for much of its history monitored it to keep all suggestions that Luther might have been part of the anti-Semitic tradition out of the article, and to keep as many quotations from On the Jews and Their Lies out of the article as possible, the rationale being that the quotations were from a copyrighted translation owned by the Lutheran church (or synod, or something similar). The only quotations able to remain despite this editor's attention had to be translated by Wikipedians from the original German, and these, as well as online access to the original text, were in short supply. You may have better luck in your task now, as that editor seems not to be editing at present. I maintained then, and would continue to support the position, that we are entitled by fair use doctrine to use brief quotations for academic purposes in this article, and would hope that other Wikipedians would also do so.

I'd also say that logical arguments from insupportable premises are what you're likely to find, and I don't think that they are any more morally supportable than illogical arguments from accurate premises. The logical arguments a person presents for his bigotry are attempts to persuade others that one's prejudices are logical, but they are not usually an honest explanation of the reason that person has those prejudices in the first place: they are not explanations, but attempts at justification, and reasoned logic is seldom an explanation of how that person became prejudiced.

If I interpret your complaint correctly, I would say that contextualizing Luther's remarks in terms of the historical tradition of Christian antisemitism would be a good idea; but again this was something that was thwarted by prior editors. - Nunh-huh 01:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nunh-huh: Thanks for that. I didn't know about this article's history.

Looking back at my last comment, I think I misrepresented my own perspective. I want this article to contain both more context and more of Luther's reasoning.

In regards to this:

I'd also say that logical arguments from insupportable premises are what you're likely to find, and I don't think that they are any more morally supportable than illogical arguments from accurate premises. The logical arguments a person presents for his bigotry are attempts to persuade others that one's prejudices are logical, but they are not usually an honest explanation of the reason that person has those prejudices in the first place: they are not explanations, but attempts at justification, and reasoned logic is seldom an explanation of how that person became prejudiced.

— Nunh-huh

I generally agree, but I don't think that's reason to exclude the reasoning he presents. It is, I assume, a core part of the work, and this is an article on that work.

Regardless, I don't have much time to put into this at the moment. Hopefully I will sometime soon. Exercisephys (talk) 05:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The context is traditional Christian amtisemitism. His "reasoning" was his religion, I think it's already pretty clear in the article.Bagist (talk) 07:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I looked for and read the best translation I could find, and noticed that the most salacious comments such as "burning their homes and synagogues" and "threaten their rabbis with loss of life and limb" are no where to be found. furthermore, there is no citation to validate the particular wording of Martin's "solutions". To further dispute the current wording in this article that states that the burning of synagogues will "show god that we are Christians" is more accurately "do not visit or participate in synagogues or the homes of Jews to show god we are Christians". I read this article and was horrified to hear that Martin could propose something so extreme as burning the homes of Jews, and after reading the text for myself was perplexed to find that was, ironically, a lie. I will be updating this article with less anti-christian phrasing which doesn't absolve Martin of his statements, but doesn't portray Martin as a proto-fascist. The original text, as translated, specifically states "we are not permitted to take revenge" and the perspective of this Wiki article indicates that Martin proposed Christians take revenge. ACiD GRiM (talk) 05:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@ACiD GRiM:, there are numerous sources meeting our criteria at WP:RS that quote him as saying that, eg [7] and [8] I don't know why you say that the article says "that the burning of synagogues will "show god that we are Christians"" as I can't find "will show god that we are Christians". Doug Weller talk 09:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Not a single alleged Jewish lie listed

The book is titled "On the Jews and Their Lies". What lies did Martin Luther allege the Jews told? The article doesn't list a single one. 37.116.207.193 (talk) 08:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I think such might have more to do with the supposed deceit the Jews were accused of practicing. DooitzedeJong (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Article should list the only(?) English translation On Jews and Their Lies

like here: https://archive.org/stream/TheJewsAndTheirLies1543En1948/LUTHERDr._Martin-The_Jews_and_their_Lies_1948-EN_djvu.txt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:490:A600:49D0:48EA:366C:2AF6 (talk) 12:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)