Talk:Martin Luther/Archive 14

message: Drboisclar, are you saying you are not familiar with Luther's work? That you saw this mention of the last sermon in the Lutheran Witness, and that was the only thing you knew about it?  You didn't realize that Luther had attacked the Jews in the very same sermon, and that it is the attack that the sermon is known for?
Here are how scholarly sources describe that sermon (or the appendix to it, the Admonition):
 
Here is how Drboisclair describes it in Wikipedia in November 2005 (later edited to "In his final sermon shortly before his death), where it sat until May 2007, unchanged by User:CTSWyneken, the other Luther expert:
Please explain the discrepancy. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please see below. Executive summary: there is some confusion over whether or not the text of the Admonition is a part of the last sermon or not. If it is, then it is inaccurate to call the more positive statement of Luther the last word he said on the Jews. It is also inaccurate to say that the sermon was mostly an attack on the Jews. It was mostly an attack on the Pope with some very nasty things added about the Jews, with a more positive note about the Jews to lead the section off. If it is not a part of the Sermon, then all parties are in error. It is not about the Jews at all. The Vermanug is a separate document, then, with the more positive comment leading and the invective following. Now, can we move below and talk about the matter rather than editors? --CTSWyneken(talk) 19:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No more obfuscation. You knew then and you know now that this — "Luther's final word on the Jews was: 'We want to treat them with Christian love and to pray for them, so that they might become converted and would receive the Lord' — is a highly misleading summary. You have no credibility left in this matter. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  I'm sorry you can't see the research we put here. SlimVirgin has deleted it for the third time today. --CTSWyneken(talk) 20:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read above. It is there. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I apologize for the delete comment. Please move it back down here so it is in sequence. This research did not start the debate, it follows it as an attempt to settle it. --CTSWyneken(talk) 20:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please address the substantive issue instead of messing around with the order of comments on the talk page. Why didn't you correct the inaccurate account of the last sermon during the 18 months that it sat in Wikipedia? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  (outdenting) Slim, it is you who are messing around with the talk page. You are burying research two of us spent a fair bit of last night and today accumulating and posting. Now, please move it back. Finally, I will not dignify anymore your assaults on my character. If you have something to the issue itself, then present it. So, are you going to address the points I made above? --CTSWyneken(talk) 22:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to get in the middle of your personal quarrel here, but why are you so demanding of others when you have been constantly reverting to preserve your own original research here, without providing the support requested, repeatedly, since last July.  I think CTSW has now responded to you several times - take a few minutes and try responding to my questions above.A Musing 21:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you SlimVirgin for discovering that the Martin Luther quote that was in this article was not representative of what he said during that sermon.  I also see evidence that the longtime and active editor of this article, CTSWyneken (aka Rev. Robert E. Smith) probably knew that it was not a representative quote.  
Despite being Electronic Resources Librarian at Concordia Theological Seminary, and having the enormous resources of his employer (LCMS), and being “coordinator of Project Wittenberg, an electronic text initiative dedicated to providing freely accessible versions of works by and about Martin Luther and other Lutherans” it is worth noting that it was always others who published English translations of “On the Jews and Their Lies” and “Vom Schem Hamphoras” to reveal the previously suppressed writings of Martin Luther.  It was never LCMS, or Reverend Smith.
Wasn’t it Reverend Smith who lamented on these pages about the days when encyclopedia articles contained little or nothing about Martin Luther’s anti-Semitic writings and toilet language?
Wasn’t is Reverend Smith who went out of his way to claim “copyright infringement” when others tried to post link to web pages that contained the English translation of some of Martin Luther’s most disturbing works?
Wasn’t it Reverend Smith who tried to make a point that Martin Luther never wrote these things (the English translations of what he wrote in German) because he didn’t speak English?   Why didn’t Reverend Smith also point out to us that Martin Luther didn’t write the English version of “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God”?
Wasn’t it Reverend Smith who calls for “Summary Style” whenever someone else discovers and tries to post another bit of true, but unflattering, writings by Martin Luther?
Who is Reverend Smith serving here?  Who is Reverend Smith trying to protect here?  Who “called” Reverend Smith to do this?
A man cannot serve two masters.
Meister Brau 21:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  If you want to be constructive and offer changes in the article feel free. But I am done responding to personal attacks. --CTSWyneken(talk) 22:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You do have to address this, CTSW. This goes way beyond POV or simple error. It looks like a deliberate attempt to mislead. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I also want to thank SlimVirgin for doing the research and discovering this distortion that was deliberately placed in the Martin Luther Wikipedia article(s).  I know that for at least a year there has been a campaign here to thwart anyone who tried to tell the complete truth about Martin Luther.  The paid agents of the Lutheran church would frequently revert anything that they did not want, and label it as "Original Research".  You are a hero to us for standing up to these thugs.  They can't handle the truth.  ThankYouVeryMuch 00:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discrepancies

message: In case the timeline is hard to follow, this should clarify it. It shows that both the Luther "expert" editors edited the summary several times, but allowed it to stand.
For anyone new looking at this, the issue is that Luther's final sermon is described by secondary sources as "entirely devoted to the obdurate Jews, whom it was a matter of great urgency to expel from all German territory" (historian Léon Poliakov), but was presented on Wikipedia by Drboisclair and CTSWyneken, who both say they are experts on Luther, as a change of heart by Luther, who wanted to "treat [the Jews] with Christian love".
*1. Drboisclair first added the summary on November 3, 2005 at 12:31 to Martin Luther. He wrote: "Luther's final word on the Jews was: 'We want to treat them with Christian love and to pray for them, so that they might become converted and would receive the Lord' (Weimar edition, Vol. 51, p. 195)." 
:There is nothing false or misleading about this in that it is a shift in Luther's "Vermahnung": I didn't know it at the time. I was simply using material that was given to me in a secondary source that I trusted.--Drboisclair 01:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no intention on the part of the secondary source to use this sentence as an exhaustive summary. The quotation is not untrue.--Drboisclair 01:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing false about this. The full quotation does not dispute this intention of Luther.--Drboisclair 01:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This translation is only bits and pieces. If you are going to quote the man, then give the full quote. This cut and paste version is also misleading as it deletes an important line.--Drboisclair 01:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This really needs to be addressed; the attempts to blame this on Brecht or Oberman won't wash, because neither of them say this, and in any event Drboisclair and CTSWyneken didn't credit this to Brecht or Oberman, but to the original sources, to which they have access. The summary was, to put it baldly, a complete falsification of Luther's "final word"; a snippet of text taken so far out of context that it completely reversed the meaning and import of Luther's sermon. Jayjg (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read your and CTS's numerous responses, and I have yet to see a direct response to the very serious issues raised here.--Mantanmoreland 02:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You wouldn't see it because of your antipathy toward us.--Drboisclair 02:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't see it because there hasn't been one.--Mantanmoreland 03:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop being uncivil.--Drboisclair 03:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Timeline of the editing of the final sermon summary

message: I am not going to dignify the above attacks by replying to any of it anymore. End of story. I am not going to post here for a few days to give you all a chance to calm down. If you wish do then do what we're supposed to be doing, trying to produce a good article, fine. If not, I simply will not reply at all. --CTSWyneken(talk) 00:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It will have to be addressed, CTSW, whether now or in a few days time. It is too much of a distortion to be ignored. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been reading a bit of this talk page for a few days now since the GA/R started, and I gotta say, it looks like its long past time for user conduct RfC's one way or another at least.... Homestarmy 01:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may have gone beyond that, Homestarmy. This is why I'm asking for an explanation, on the off-chance that there is one. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is one to impartial readers. See below.--Drboisclair 03:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: This misleading information was inserted in the Martin Luther article (and was then repeated in other related articles) in direct response to the accurate anti-semitic quotes that had been discovered by independent researchers.  The false information was put there to soften, mitigate, diffuse, and humanize the hatefull, foul mouthed words that Luther actually wrote.  It inaccurately "proved" that Luther somehow "came to his senses" at the end of his life.  It was not just a random error in the article that had no effect on the public perception of who Martin Luther really was.  It was part of a long term, on-going, deliberate effort to hide information by not translating it, and when others found the resources to fund independent translations there was an attempt to block access to the translations by claiming copyright infringement, claiming that these writings had no effect on the Nazis (until someone eventually pointed out that Hitler had named Martin Luther in Mein Kampf), and discouraging and reverting the posts of numerous independent editors.  The two people responsible for inserting and perpetuating this error are both Lutheran pastors and describe it as an "innocent mistake".  One is a paid employee of LCMS. Meister Brau 18:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, I don't think there's many people on Wikipedia who can translate German text like that though, and I doubt that Slim paid actual money to someone for her translation, it sounds like she e-mailed someone the text in german and asked for a translation. Homestarmy 19:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I can read German myself. I didn't have the text of the final sermon in English or German, but I was suspicious of Drboisclair's rendition, so I e-mailed an academic and Luther scholar to ask if he could tell me about it. He sent me that translation. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Meister Brau, you are a new editor here. Please review Wikipedia principles before you step in and make accusations like this.--Drboisclair 19:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Homestarmy about that. I was refering to the English translations of “On the Jews and Their Lies” and “Vom Schem Hamphoras” which were independent translations. The LCMS and their paid researchers who post here were not the ones who translated them for us. They did however, post incorrect information here that minimized the impact of what Luther wrote. Meister Brau 19:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: @Drboisclair, I believe that the facts speak for themselves.  Dispute them if you must.  I do not wish to engage anyone in an argument, but please do not try to "pull rank" on me here. Meister Brau 19:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true that CTSW tried for a long time to keep certain information/translations out of the articles claiming copyright infringement. Basically, for two years, he has done nothing but cause problems for any editor wanting to add criticism, no matter what kind of criticism. He has done everything in his power to keep this and other Luther articles whitewashed, while at the same time pushing for them to have FA or GA status. This is why this latest sermon incident is instructive, and I hope it will act as a catalyst to put an end to the kind of editing we've seen here. Then at least something constructive will have emerged from it. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: user:Meister Brau, you speak as if you have had a long time familiarity with this website, but you are very new. This seems unusual.--Drboisclair 19:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not opposed to research, but we all have to be concerned about "no original research."--Drboisclair 19:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an "American Edition" of Luther's Works that translates merely a fraction of all he wrote. It was done by scholars who are not only from the Lutheran Church. Luther's works are contained in a monumental 100+ volume collection known as the Weimar Ausgabe. The compilation of that resource, which began in 1883 has taken over 100 years to complete, and it is still being revised. The fact that Luther's Von den Juden has been translated by an ELCA scholar shows that there is no desire to hide anything. I am willing to translate the text that I have posted above if there are editors who would like me to do so; however, while my translation skills are fair they are not as perfect as that of others. As far as I know there is no desire to conceal anything.--Drboisclair 20:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Drb, by all means translate the material if you have time, but bear in mind there's no rush for it, as it would be a lot of work. I read German so I can help out, and we have the academic's translation to refer to as well. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: So it was an ELCA scholar (and not one from LCMS) who translated “On the Jews and Their Lies”.  What about “Vom Schem Hamphoras”? Meister Brau 20:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vom Schem Hamphoras was never translated into English as far as I know.--Drboisclair 20:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course it was translated into English.  It was published 15 years ago (in 1992).  Dr. Gerhard Falk, "sociologist, historian.  Born Gerhard Falck in Hamburg, Germany.  Has lived in Buffalo since 1957.  Author of over fifty scholarly works, including Murder:   An Analysis of its Forms, Conditions and Causes (1990), American Judaism in Transition:  The Secularization of a Religious Community (1994), Hippocrates Assailed:  The American Health Delivery System (1999), Stigma:  How We Treat Outsiders (2001), and Man's Ascent to Reason (2002).  Dr. Falk's book The Jew in Christian Theology (1992), which traces the origins and history of Christian teachings about Jews,  includes the only English translation of Martin Luther's violently antisemitic booklet, Vom Schem Hamphoras (Of the Hidden Name)".  Definitely not a member or employee of LCMS.  It was quoted and linked from THIS WIKIPEDEA MARTIN LUTHER ARTICLE. Meister Brau 22:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Was The Effect of Putting This False Information in the Martin Luther Articles?