Talk:Martin Luther/Archive 14

Luther's Last Sermon
Let's try to move beyond ad hominem and take a look at the sermon that the LCMS resolution calls "Luther's last sermon" If I miss something, please feel free to add it.

The sermon appears as the last entry under "Predigten des Jahres 1546" in volume 51 of the definitive critical edition of Luther's works, the Weimar Ausgabe. It is numbered 8 and dated 15. Februar 1546 and titled: "Predigt über Matth. 11,25 ff. zu Eisleben gehalten: Die vierde Predigt." It is located from page 187 to 196 and appears in two parts, the last on pages 195-196 entitled "EIne vermanung wider die Juden." This last has been typed from the St. Louis Edition text by DRBoisclair at the talk page of Talk:Martin Luther and the Jews. The first part is mostly a critique of the papcy and its theology, only one reference to the Jews made in the passage: "EBen solche weisheit hatte Caiphas auch, da er mit den Jüden zu rat gieng: Ir grobe Narren, ir habt keine köpffe, ir wisset und verstehet nichts, Ists nicht besser, das ein man sterbe, denn das das gantze Volk verderbe?" (p. 190, lines 12-14) The last two pages appear to contain both the material quoted by the LCMS and that in the long quotation Slim has found. The translation of the short passage done by the LCMS is from Uwe Siemon-Netto, "Luther and the Jews," Lutheran Witness 123 (2004)no. 4:18. I'm not sure where the translation provided of the longer passage comes from.--CTS Wyneken (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is the text of the appendix from which this quotation is taken:


 * Saint Louis Edition of Luther's Works, vol. 12, col. 1264-1267:



--Drboisclair 13:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Relevant material from Martin Brecht, Martin Luther: The Preservation of the Church 1532-1546, p. 350: "Several times in his sermons in Eisleben he attacked the Jews. He realized, of course, that they were the firstborn, and that Christians had to thank them for the law, the prophets, and even Christ himself, but this gave the Jews no right to set themselves up against God and to kill Christ and Christians. (footnote 58: WA, Br 11:275, line 5-276, line 2=LW 50:290-291. WA Br 11:286, line 15-287, line 24. WA 51:172, line 32--173, line 2.) He appended An Admonition Against the Jews probably to his last sermon but one. He wanted people initially to deal in a Christian way with them and call upon them to accept the Messiah, their 'cousin,' and to be baptized, but the Jews blashemed Christ daily. This could not be tolerated, or people would be participating in the sins of another. The princes shold expel such Jews, but in case they converted, abandoned usury, and accepted Christ they should be considered brothers. There was no other option."--Drboisclair 15:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Note 77; Luther's last Sermon
Slim, I do not believe the Weimar contains any English text. Would you kindly cite the source of the translation? Also, have you read this sermon? If not, please cite the secondary source that summarizes it in this way. --CTS Wyneken (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Slim, your edit summary is untrue. My point is that you quote a secondary source and cite it to the primary source. How are we to know who the translator or paraphrasing party is? Your citation, apart from being inaccurate, gave the impression that Luther wrote in English. It is as if I quoted the Book of Exodus in the words of the King James Version, but cited the Hebrew text. Such an approach is at best misleading. I have no objection to you quoting it, just cite it accurately.
 * That having been said, I have no objection to your latest summary with citation. It is a good start. --CTS Wyneken (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't cited it to the primary source. Read the citation. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Why did you, for 18 months, allow the summary below of his final sermon to remain either in Martin Luther or in Martin Luther and the Jews, without changing it or at least alerting us to how one-sided and misleading it was?




 * SlimVirgin (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * For the same reason I let this one stand; I didn't notice the cite because I didn't do a systematic analysis of the citations in the subarticles. My attention was on the notes and text here. And, yes, with the quote itself you did cite the original version to back up a secondary source. And, like this one, the pagination is off to boot. So, in short, if you cite the translation of this quotation, I do not have a problem with including it. I'd only ask that the size be kept as limited as possible. --CTS Wyneken (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't asking about the citation. I'm asking why you didn't do anything about Wikipedia containing, for 18 months, a seriously misleading description of Luther's final sermon. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The same could be said for you, Slim. It seems that you didn't notice this aspect of the articles either. Frankly, I've avoided working on this topic as much as possible, knowing that you and those who edit with you would not allow the slightest change in your prose.


 * Now, can we stop the ad hominem? On the point: the passage that the LCMS translates in its resolution condemning Luther's anti-Jewish comments (Uwe Siemon-Netto, "Luther and the Jews," Lutheran Witness 123 (2004) No. 4:18) is actually from the page cited (WA 51:195). If used, it can have both references in it. I have yet to check the longer quote, since I do not know where the translation is from, nor the pagination for it, since it is miscited (probably a typo). I have no reason to believe it's not there. As with much of Luther's work, the matter of this is likel much more complex than you make it out to be. Luther is quite capable of swinging from sweet to acidic and back again, especially at this time of his life. If the sermon is to be discussed, it ought to mention both aspects. --CTS</b> Wyneken <sup style="font-family:Andale Mono IPA; color:maroon;">(talk)  20:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like a straight answer to this, please. Don't try to muddy the waters by discussing citations.


 * The issue is simple. You say you are an expert on Luther. You've made 878 edits to this article and 145 edits to the article the summary of the sermon was moved to. You must therefore have seen it quite a few times. But it is deeply misleading, and you would have known that. I am therefore asking you why you didn't change it, or at least alert us to the fact that Wikipedia contained a highly misleading summary of Luther's last sermon for 18 months &mdash; misleading to the point of distortion. This hinges on intellectual honesty, which goes beyond matters of POV, and is therefore important. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 21:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What if the answer is that He was unaware of this. There was an instance of the Hallsall material being used in a faulty manner. I think that you should give CTS the benefit of the doubt here. If he had known of this problem, he would have corrected it. We work with sources here, and the sources may be in error. Have you examined the Weimar Ausgabe volume to determine that this quotation is not there?--Drboisclair 21:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't say the quotation wasn't there. I said it was highly misleading to use only that part of the sermon, and doing so was designed to give the impression that Luther had had some sort of volte face at the end of his life, whereas scholars describe the sermon as yet another diatribe against the Jews.


 * What about you, Drboisclair? Why didn't you fix it? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 21:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly what is wrong with it? Please specify what the problem is. I do not understand.--Drboisclair 21:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you serious that you can read through this thread and "not understand" the simple issue involved here?--Mantanmoreland 21:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop being uncivil, Manta, spell it out for me.--Drboisclair 21:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * He's not being uncivil, Dr. I'll try to make it clearer. Do you feel that this ...




 * ... is an accurate summary of Luther's final sermon? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 22:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I will have to go to the library to check it. I think that it is a case of trusting a secondary source here. Consulting one of the resources at my disposal here in my office seems to indicate that p. 195 of the WA is the page after "The Last Sermon Preached at Eisleben, February 15, 1546"; this is contained in WA 51,187-194. If there was a mistake here, it is in the secondary source. I will check this out. I think that imputing bad motives to editors is uncivil, though. If there is a mistake, we cannot be blamed for it IF we were unaware of it, and I was unaware of it and CTS was unaware of it. So, in answer to your question: as of this very moment, I don't know. I am checking it out for myself. If you have volume 51 of the WA or volume 51 of the American edition, you could be helpful. Please give other editors the benefit of the doubt.--Drboisclair 22:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

<---But it is a famous sermon among Lutheran scholars, Drb, and you've indicated elsewhere that you're an expert on Luther, as has CTSW. I also don't see how it can be a problem with secondary sources, when you didn't quote a secondary source, but Luther himself. You can read the Wikipedia article now for a brief summary from secondary sources of the tone of that sermon. It's described as "brimming over with biting condemnation and vulgarities for the Jews." Your description made it sound like a love letter. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 22:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say that it was a "love letter". Among some it would be considered to be patronizing. Isn't it from the Siemon-Netto article? On the surface the citation itself looks like a mistake WA, vol. 51, p. 195. Maybe American Edition, vol. 51, p. 195 is meant. You have to understand that there are over 100 700+ pages of Luther's works. I think that the problem is with the secondary source. I can't say whether it is right or wrong without following all the leads.--Drboisclair 22:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is from volume 3 of Martin Brecht's Martin Luther, p. 350: "He [Luther] appended An Admonition Against the Jews probably to his last sermon but one. He wanted people initially to deal in a Christian way with them and call upon them to accept the Messiah, their "cousin," and to be baptized, but Jews blasphemed Christ daily." Even looking at this I would say that it cannot be considered a "love letter." CTS does not say that this quotation comes from the last sermon. It is the last sermon but one. Still looking into this.--Drboisclair 22:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no secondary source. Here it is once again, with the only source it had:




 * The source is Luther, and the question is not whether he said it (he may well have done), but whether it is an accurate summary of his final sermon. Are you saying you're completely unfamiliar with that sermon? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 22:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: his final word on the Jews. Not his final word but one. And one of you later changed it to read "his last sermon" or "his final sermon." SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 22:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is where I finally realized it was a distortion, just yesterday. It said:




 * Those cite tags suggest it was CTSW who edited it. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 22:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My dear Slim, if you look at the quotation it simply says Luther's last word on the Jews. It does not say that it is from his last sermon. It is apparently from his second last sermon. The citation "Weimar edition, Vol. 51, p. 195" is apparently an error. --Drboisclair 22:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do you now think it is from his second last sermon? Not only did the Wikipedia article say it is from his final sermon, but Heiko Oberman says it is from his last sermon. However, as is clear, it is a tiny snippet of a quotation taken out of context, and completely represents the actual tenor and content of his final sermon. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I have just reread the last sermon in Wittenberg and his "last sermon" in Eisleben, and there is no quotation like this there. There must be another sermon that occurs in Weimar Ausgabe, vol. 51, page 195, but I do not have that book here. I have access to the American edition, which has provided the information. Jay, you have just corroborated Brecht in what you have quoted. The next step is to consult the Weimar Ausgabe, which I will do, but it will take a little time. Be patient.--Drboisclair 23:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm finding this hard to understand. Please look at the quotes above, which I've cited maybe four times now. "In his FINAL sermon ..." "His FINAL word on the Jews ..." SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 22:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Slim, Jay, and Mantanmoreland, I have an answer for you. As you can see there are secondary sources Brecht and Oberman, who say that there is this statement in Luther's last sermon. Actually, it is in the appendix to his last sermon, which is Eine Vermahnung wider die Juden (Warning against the Jews). I can type in here the entire document, which is perhaps one or two pages long, but I will do that only if you would like to read it. The quote in question is: "Noch wollen wir die christliche Liebe an ihnen üben, und für sie bitten, daß sie sich bekehren, den HErrn annehmen, den sie vor uns billig ehren sollten." This could very well be on page 195 of WA 51, since it is an appendix to Luther's last sermon. This is corroborated by Oberman and Brecht, so this is not an error. Q.E.D.--Drboisclair 00:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

In this document Luther mentions his allegations against the Jews of blasphemy against Jesus and Mary as Brecht says, but his advice is the statement about praying for them and using them in a "Christian" manner. Yes, it is not a "love letter", but it is different from Luther's Von den Juden. As you can see, too, CTS is simply following Brecht and Oberman. I have the entire appendix in question in an electronic document if anyone wants me to send it to them or post it here.--Drboisclair 01:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Drb, please read carefully, because we are talking at cross purposes. I am not questioning that Luther said the above in his last sermon, or in his appendix. I am saying that it is NOT AN ACCURATE SUMMARY OF THE SERMON AS A WHOLE. I am saying that it is misleading; that the quote was taken out of context and is highly misleading, because it gives exactly the wrong impression of the sermon. Do you understand?


 * My question to you again is: Do you feel that the quote I've repeated three or four times is an ACCURATE SUMMARY of the final sermon?


 * I am repeating the quote again below for your convenience. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My short answer: after having read the sermons in question and the appendix, NO. However, you cannot blame CTS or me for this as being misleading. You will have to blame Oberman and Brecht. He and I were simply following acknowledged scholars. I have the electronic text of the appendix if you would like to read it as I know that you can read German.--Drboisclair 02:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You didn't cite Oberman and Brecht, and they do not summarize the sermon the way you did. Please take this seriously, drb, because it's starting to look like intellectual fraud. Please cite the source that told you this was an accurate summary of the final sermon. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 04:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not going answer your ad hominems any longer. Since you are not inclined to be fair-minded, I will not explain my actions to you at all. If you wish to discuss the matter of the sermon itself and what, if any, of it should be included in this article or another, that is fine.


 * Let me repeat myself. As long as the quotation from this sermon is accurately cited in the future, I do not object to its inclusion in this article or any other that deals with the matter.


 * So, for those who actually care about moving the article forward, let me explain, again, what I found when I pulled WA 51 this afternoon. First of all, the sermon is in German. Second, the source for the short quotation is the LCMS resolution condemning Luther's harsh words against the Jews. It, in turn, is a translation of text that appears at WA 51;195. I do not know where the translation of the longer passage comes from. If someone knows where it comes from, plase post the cite here. If time permits tomorrow, I will scan the sermon for text that looks like the source of this translation. I will post the page numbers if I find it.


 * Once we have it all sourced, then perhaps someone can read the whole sermon a summarize it for us. Only when we have read the whole thing can we hope to judge what is representative of that work.


 * I'm finished for now. Go ahead and attack me again, if you wish. --<b style="font-family:Andale Mono IPA; color:navy;">CTS</b> Wyneken <sup style="font-family:Andale Mono IPA; color:maroon;">(talk) 03:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You've gone too far this time. That was a complete distortion of the message of the final sermon, and you must have seen that text hundreds of times as you edited around it over the last 18 months, and indeed I believe you added the cite tags to the reference. A journalist or academic who did that would probably lose their jobs. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 04:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Drboisclair, how can you blame Oberman, when Oberman clearly quotes Luther as saying that the Jews are "our public enemies ... and if they could kill us all, they would gladly do so. And so often they do."? How did that sentence get left out? Oberman didn't leave it out. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My point is that you cannot blame CTS or me. Wikipedia has a rule about OR, so we simply made that citation on the basis of a secondary source that cited that quotation.


 * Which secondary source? Please name your source. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 04:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The best explanation that I can come up with for why this point was made in a secondary source is that it is a softening of Luther's advice given in On the Jews and Their Lies. Perhaps Luther should have given that advice earlier about treating the Jews in a Christian manner. He certainly didn't. I am embarrassed that he made such shameful comments at all: we all are. CTS or I DID NOT FORMULATE THE POINT ABOUT LUTHER'S LAST SERMON. We simply trusted the secondary sources that had used it because we thought them reputable. I think that there should be a courtesy extended to editors that their motives should not be questioned: they should be given the benefit of the doubt, and to accuse us of misleading when we were unaware of any misrepresentation is simply unjust to say the least and unbecoming of the WP:CIVIL principle. As to the appendix in question: there appears to be a selective quotation of it on the Martin Luther and the Jews, it seems that the translation of "Noch wollen wir die christliche Liebe an ihnen üben, und für sie bitten, daß sie sich bekehren, den HErrn annehmen, den sie vor uns billig ehren sollten" is strangely absent. I think that that shows that that translation is POV and biased by not having that sentence in there.--Drboisclair 03:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And furthermore, I don't think that we or any others should be blamed because other sources like Shirer, Johnson, Michael, Halsall are taken at face value as well. Did someone check up on all of their citations of primary sources? If there was misrepresentation of the character of the last things that Luther said about the Jews and I had any part in it, though ignorantly, then I apologize for it. I think that this matter should be ended. Simply omit the sentence that is alleged to be misleading.--Drboisclair 04:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please name your source, Drb, because none of the sources I have found describes the final sermon that way. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 04:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Slim, while you're at it, could you respond to my requests for citations for your OR? It's odd, the first time you ask, I see people working hard to respond.  Yet I ask repeatedly, and you don't name your sources and spend your considerable edit time on the article instead questioning others.  Come on, support your own work here, or remove the OR.A Musing 11:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not initially enter this statement about the final sermon, but one source is Martin Brecht, Martin Luther, vol. 3, p. 350. CTS above has cited: Uwe Siemon-Netto, "Luther and the Jews," Lutheran Witness 123 (2004) No. 4:18. There may be a quotation of it in Siemon-Netto's book against what he calls the Shirer myth. I need to check that. Is this sufficient? Please let this matter rest with the simple removal of the misleading sentence. Let there be an end to accusations, please.--Drboisclair 04:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Drboisclair, you are the editor who first added this to Martin Luther, then later it was moved to Martin Luther and the Jews when it was decided to create a subpage. The matter can't be allowed to rest, because this appears to be intellectual fraud, rather than an error, or a simple matter of POV. It was Luther's final sermon, it is well-known among Luther scholars, and yet the only mention our article made of it for 18 months was this very short, completely misleading paragraph?


 * This is a quotation from that Lutheran Witness issue: "in that light, we personally and individually adopt Luther’s final attitude toward the Jewish people, as evidenced in his last sermon: ‘We want to treat them with Christian love and to pray for them, so that they might become converted and would receive the Lord.’"--Drboisclair 05:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is the text of the entire appendix in modern German: --Drboisclair 05:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Discrepancies
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 <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 19:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 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? --<b style="font-family:Andale Mono IPA; color:navy;">CTS</b> Wyneken <sup style="font-family:Andale Mono IPA; color:maroon;">(talk) 19:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No more obfuscation. You knew then and you know now that this &mdash; "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' &mdash; is a highly misleading summary. You have no credibility left in this matter. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 20:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you can't see the research we put here. SlimVirgin has deleted it for the third time today. --<b style="font-family:Andale Mono IPA; color:navy;">CTS</b> Wyneken <sup style="font-family:Andale Mono IPA; color:maroon;">(talk) 20:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Read above. It is there. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 20:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 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. --<b style="font-family:Andale Mono IPA; color:navy;">CTS</b> Wyneken <sup style="font-family:Andale Mono IPA; color:maroon;">(talk) 20:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 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 <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 21:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * (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? --<b style="font-family:Andale Mono IPA; color:navy;">CTS</b> Wyneken <sup style="font-family:Andale Mono IPA; color:maroon;">(talk) 22:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * If you want to be constructive and offer changes in the article feel free. But I am done responding to personal attacks. --<b style="font-family:Andale Mono IPA; color:navy;">CTS</b> Wyneken <sup style="font-family:Andale Mono IPA; color:maroon;">(talk) 22:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You do have to address this, CTSW. This goes way beyond POV or simple error. It looks like a deliberate attempt to mislead. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 23:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)

Timeline of the editing of the final sermon summary
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)


 * 2. Drboisclair edited it a few minutes later on Nov 3, 2005 at 12:33, adding "in his last sermon," with the edit summary "A final word is always authoritative", so that it now read: "Luther's final word on the Jews was in his last sermon: "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 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)


 * 3. When Martin Luther and the Jews was created on Nov 5, 2005, it was moved by Jayjg to the new page, still reading: "Luther's final word on the Jews was in his last sermon: "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)."


 * 4. Drboisclair changed it on Nov 5, 2005 to: "In Luther's final sermon he again indicates his desire that Jews would convert to Christianity: "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 about this. The full quotation does not dispute this intention of Luther.--Drboisclair 01:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 5. CTSWyneken changed it on Nov 14, 2005 to: "In his final sermon shortly before his death, Luther preached "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 ed., vol. 51, p. 195)."


 * 6. Humus sapiens created a header for it on December 19, 2005 called "Schem Hamephoras and Luther's final sermon". The new section makes it even more misleading (Humus didn't know it was a misleading summary to start with), because it gives the impression that, although a few months before his death, Luther was still attacking the Jews, he changed his mind shortly before his death.


 * 7. CTSWyneken expanded the citation for it on January 16, 2006 from "Weimar ed., vol. 51, p. 195" to "Martin Luther, D. Martin Luthers Werke: kritische Gesamtausgabe, Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1920),51:195. Hereafter cited WA."


 * 8. Bravehearted gave the summary its own header "Luther's final sermon" in July 2006. It still reads: "In his final sermon shortly before his death, Luther preached "We want to treat them with Christian love and to pray for them, so that they might become converted and would receive the Lord." "


 * 9. It stayed like that until May 14, 2007, when I merged On the Jews and their Lies into Martin Luther and the Jews. During that series of edits, I moved the summary out of its own section. I then realized that we had no evidence that Luther had had such a drastic change of heart toward the Jews in his final days, and if he had, CTSW and Drboisclair would doubtless have made much more of it than just adding this one quote. I also vaguely recalled that Luther's last sermon is famous for being another rant against the Jews. I therefore removed Drboisclair's summary of it.


 * 10. I e-mailed a Luther expert and asked whether he knew what the final sermon said. He e-mailed the following German-English translation of it, which I added to the article: This includes the text added by Drboisclair, but as you can see, the context shines a very different light on the statement (that Jews should be accepted if they convert), because Luther goes on to say: "Nothing will come of it though, for they go too far. They are our public enemies ..."


 * 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)


 * 11. Even after this, CTSW objected that it was a translation by an unknown person, so I removed it again until the translation is confirmed. However, CTSW has confirmed on Talk:Martin Luther that this text is in the original German version.


 * 12. I added a section on the final sermon to Martin Luther on May 14, 2007, relying only on the description of it by secondary sources, and a brief quote from Luther that was used by a secondary source.

I repeat the question I've now asked several times. Why did Drboisclar and CTSWyneken &mdash; who both claim to be Luther experts &mdash; add, edit several times, and fail to correct such a misleading account of Luther's final sermon during the 18 months that it sat in Wikipedia? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 23:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 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 <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

(removing my comments, which were inappropriate.--Drboisclair 21:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC))
 * 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)
 * You wouldn't see it because of your antipathy toward us.--Drboisclair 02:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't see it because there hasn't been one.--Mantanmoreland 03:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop being uncivil.--Drboisclair 03:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Response
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. --<b style="font-family:Andale Mono IPA; color:navy;">CTS</b> Wyneken <sup style="font-family:Andale Mono IPA; color:maroon;">(talk) 00:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 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 <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

(Removing material I posted that violates WP:CIVIL).--Drboisclair 21:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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 <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 02:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is one to impartial readers. See below.--Drboisclair 03:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that I can be accused of here
As I see it: the only thing that I can be accused of here is simply taking the word of secondary sources about Luther's last word about the Jews. I did not read the primary source, which is some distance away from me. I had reason to trust the secondary source that was used. I acted in concert with fellow editors. I resent the slander that is being made against me on this talk page.--Drboisclair 01:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Which secondary source? Please quote exactly what the source said. Also, are you saying you had no independent knowledge of the contents of the final sermon? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 02:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you understand the high degree of concern expressed here? Do you not agree that this was a major error and distortion (putting aside for a second the issue of fault)? I am surprised that Luther scholars, interested in publishing the truth about the historical record, would be so nonchalant about such a significant misstatement of the historical record, and would not be publicly teed off about the error. All I see are remarks like "tempest in a teapot" that minimize what has happened here.--Mantanmoreland 02:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This "high degree of concern" is misrepresentation and slander against CTS and me. The abbreviated translation of the document in question is also misleading in that it even leaves out the sentence in question. That also may be construed as deliberate censureship because it is chocked full of lacunae. The only end that appears in this is to discredit editors by exaggerating this matter that occurred 2 years ago. I have corrected at least two or three misleading edits on the part of another editor to these articles without making a big "to do!" about it.--Drboisclair 02:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Drb, are you being deliberately obtuse? The point is this: Luther's last sermon consisted of another rant against Jews. You presented it instead as an expression of brotherly Christian love. You have blamed a secondary source for this, but you've not yet said which source and exactly what that source said. You also didn't cite any secondary source; you cited Luther directly and you have easy access to the whole sermon. To say that you are guilty of serious misrepresentation is not a slander, because it is true. I am very willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, if you can present me with any doubt, but so far you've not been able to explain.


 * If you were an editor who is not very familiar with Luther, then I would, of course, extend good faith and assume this was a simple error. But you say you are very familiar with him. So what happened? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 02:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ma'am, I simply repeated what is in the material that I posted below. I did not check the original source. I took the secondary source for granted. That is my only error. I did not deliberately falsify. To tell you the truth I wasn't aware of the entire content of the appendix in question. I didn't see the text in question until I looked into it after you raised this matter, which I still think is greatly out of proportion.--Drboisclair 03:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

More detailed presentation of the secondary sources in question for my defense
This document is one of the secondary sources that we used for making the case for what Luther wrote in his last sermon and its appendix. .


 * That's a PDF copy of a magazine. Can you say which page, please? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 04:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Page 14 (15 out of 18) I guess was in the location box at the bottom of the Adobe screen.--Drboisclair 07:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The page in question is as follows: THE SYNOD’S RESPONSE The Lutheran Witness, in the “Q&A” column for October 1994, addressed the matter of “Luther and the Jews.” Here’s what the column said. — Ed.Late in life, Luther became quite frustrated in his hope that large numbers of Jews would be converted by an honest presentation of the Gospel. That frustration—even bitterness—shows in some of his writings. That’s not to say that we should excuse Luther’s invective. And the Missouri Synod hasn’t excused it. The 1983 Synod convention resolved that we “deplore and disassociate ourselves from Luther’s negative statements about the Jewish people.” Rather, we are encouraged to adopt the attitude toward Jewish people taken by Luther in his last sermon: “We want to treat them with Christian love and to pray for them, so that they might become converted and would receive the Lord.” The convention noted that “it is widely but falsely assumed that Luther’s personal writings and opinions have some official status among us (thus, sometimes implying the responsibility of contemporary Lutheranism for those statements . . .).” At the same time, it said, the Scriptural mandate to proclaim the Gospel “to all people—that is, to Jews also, no more and no less than to others (Matt. 28:18–20). . . is sometimes confused with anti-Semitism.” The convention resolved that:
 * “we condemn any and all discrimination against others on account of race or religion or any coercion on that account and pledge ourselves to work and witness against such sins”;
 * “while, on the one hand, we are deeply indebted to Luther for his rediscovery and enunciation of the Gospel, on the other hand, we deplore and disassociate ourselves from Luther’s negative statements about the Jewish people, and, by the same token, we deplore the use today of such sentiments by Luther to incite anti-Christian and/or anti-Lutheran sentiment”;
 * “we reaffirm that the bases of our doctrine are the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions and not Luther, as such”;
 * “in our teaching and preaching we take care not to confuse the religion of the Old Testament . . . with the subsequent Judaism, nor misleadingly speak about “Jews” in the Old Testament (“Israelites” or “Hebrews” being much more accurate terms), lest we obscure the basic claim of the New Testament and of the Gospel to being in substantial continuity with the Old Testament and that the fulfillment of the ancient promises came in Jesus Christ”;
 * “we avoid the recurring pitfall of recrimination (as illustrated by the remarks of Luther and many of the early church fathers) against those who do not respond positively to our evangelistic efforts”; and
 * “in that light, we personally and individually adopt Luther’s final attitude toward the Jewish people, as evidenced in his last sermon: ‘We want to treat them with Christian love and to pray for them, so that they might become converted and would receive the Lord.’”

This was taken from The Lutheran Witness, vol. 123 (April 2004), and anyone who would be interested in giving a fair and impartial hearing to my defense would carefully read it rather than disregard it. My only fault was in not looking at the primary source but simply repeating what the secondary source presented. I think that it is unfair for everything that I have posted here to be set aside. Emphasis added for the relevant material.--Drboisclair 03:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You're defense is that you, a scholar of Martin Luther, learned about the contents of that sermon by reading about it in twelve-year-old edition of a Lutheran magazine ? You can't be serious. --Mantanmoreland 03:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, my defense is that I took this quotation at face value without looking at the original source.--Drboisclair 03:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But you said it came from the "Weimar edition, Vol. 51, p. 195" How did you know that? Was it in the newsletter as well? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * From this posting on the LCMS Website: --Drboisclair 03:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC) I simply took the official document of the LCMS at face value. It was linked to the Luther article at the time.--Drboisclair 03:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why wasn't the website cited as a source? Why was the publication not cited as a source? Why are we learning about this now, after the damage was done?--Mantanmoreland 03:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The Luther page was linked to it, look for yourself: under the LCMS response to Luther's antisemitic writings.--Drboisclair 03:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

In 1983, the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod made an official statement disassociating themselves from Luther's anti-Semitic statements. Copied from the Luther article on the date in question in 2005.--Drboisclair 03:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC) Here is the material:
 * Luther's Anti-Semitism

Q. What is the Missouri Synod's response to the anti-Semitic statements made by Luther?

A. While The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod holds Martin Luther in high esteem for his bold proclamation and clear articulation of the teachings of Scripture, it deeply regrets and deplores statements made by Luther which express a negative and hostile attitude toward the Jews. In light of the many positive and caring statements concerning the Jews made by Luther throughout his lifetime, it would not be fair on the basis of these few regrettable (and uncharacteristic) negative statements, to characterize the reformer as "a rabid anti-Semite." The LCMS, however, does not seek to "excuse" these statements of Luther, but denounces them (without denouncing Luther's theology). In 1983, the Synod adopted an official resolution addressing these statements of Luther and making clear its own position on anti-Semitism. The text of this resolution reads as follows:

WHEREAS, Anti-Semitism and other forms of racism are a continuing problem in our world; and

WHEREAS, Some of Luther's intemperate remarks about the Jews are often cited in this connection; and

WHEREAS, It is widely but falsely assumed that Luther's personal writings and opinions have some official status among us (thus, sometimes implying the responsibility of contemporary Lutheranism for those statements, if not complicity in them); but also

WHEREAS, It is plain from scripture that the Gospel must be proclaimed to all people--that is, to Jews also, no more and no less than to others (Matt. 28:18-20); and

WHEREAS, This Scriptural mandate is sometimes confused with anti-Semitism; therefore be it

Resolved, That we condemn any and all discrimination against others on account of race or religion or any coercion on that account and pledge ourselves to work and witness against such sins; and be it further

Resolved, That we reaffirm that the bases of our doctrine and practice are the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions and not Luther, as such; and be it further

Resolved, That while, on the one hand, we are deeply indebted to Luther for his rediscovery and enunciation of the Gospel, on the other hand, we deplore and disassociate ourselves from Luther's negative statements about the Jewish people, and, by the same token, we deplore the use today of such sentiments by Luther to incite ant-Christian and/or anti-Lutheran sentiment; and be it further

Resolved, That in our teaching and preaching we take care not to confuse the religion of the Old Testament (often labeled "Yahwism") with the subsequent Judaism, nor misleadingly speak about "Jews" in the Old Testament ("Israelites" or "Hebrews" being much more accurate terms), lest we obscure the basic claim of the New Testament and of the Gospel to being in substantial continuity with the Old Testament and that the fulfillment of the ancient promises came in Jesus Christ; and be it further

Resolved, That we avoid the recurring pitfall of recrimination (as illustrated by the remarks of Luther and many of the early church fathers) against those who do not respond positively to our evangelistic efforts; and be it finally

Resolved, That, in that light, we personally and individually adopt Luther's final attitude toward the Jewish people, as evidenced in his last sermon: "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)."--Drboisclair 03:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Stop the filibustering. There is no need to copy the entire resolution.
 * Yes, the official statement was properly linked in the context of the synod disassociating itself with Luther's bigotry -- NOT as a source of the "last sermon" material.
 * When someone cites a particular document, the assumption is that that document has been read by the person citing it. That assumption is particularly so for people purporting to be experts in the subject matter. This is, in my view, terribly misleading -- citing that material in this way. I thought you gents speak German and all that, and it turns out you're taking stuff off websites without consulting the document cited. Amazing.--Mantanmoreland 03:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Instead of a proper rendition of the historical record, we got politically motivated and INACCURATE spin from the synod, parrotted in Wikipedia by obviously biased "scholars" with no effort made to check the actual source. --Mantanmoreland 03:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact, I assumed you not only knew the original source backwards and forwards but could practically recite it from memory. You'te the "experts," after all. This is outrageous.--Mantanmoreland 03:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That is the truth if you want to believe it or not. I am not filibutering. I am simply presenting where I got the material from, period. I never read the sermon and I never saw the appendix until yesterday. Since you have always been antagonistic toward me, I don't expect you to believe me. That is the truth of it.--Drboisclair 03:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say I didn't believe you. On the contrary, I find this explanation both credible and disgraceful. --Mantanmoreland 03:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "Let him who is without sin among you cast the first stone."--Drboisclair 03:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have made mistakes, but I don't think you'll find a single edit of mine that could seriously be construed as a deliberate misrepresentation. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 04:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The same is true for me.--Drboisclair 07:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd be more inclined to forgive and forget if what I read on this talk page was an apology and an acceptance of responsibility for a significant error, and not obfuscation, minimization and defiance. Sorry, this is not the time for Biblical platitudes, and the one you've cited above is offensively inappropriate under the circumstances.--Mantanmoreland 03:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't need to be lectured by you. This is the last time I will respond to your statements.--Drboisclair 03:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I think you have a lot more explaining to do, but I am done with you.--Mantanmoreland 03:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Quoted from above: And furthermore, I don't think that we or any others should be blamed because other sources like Shirer, Johnson, Michael, Halsall are taken at face value as well. Did someone check up on all of their citations of primary sources? If there was misrepresentation of the character of the last things that Luther said about the Jews and I had any part in it, though ignorantly, then I apologize for it. I think that this matter should be ended. Simply omit the sentence that is alleged to be misleading.--Drboisclair 04:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)" There's an apology.--Drboisclair 03:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you saying you had no knowledge whatsoever of Luther's final sermon, apart from what you read in that magazine and on the Luther website? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 04:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As to its contents, yes. I read it for the first time yesterday as I have said.--Drboisclair 07:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Why are you again referring to Shirer, Johnson, Michael, Halsall? They did not say what you said. You did not take any information from them about this.
 * The reason we're pressing this, Drb, is that it casts into doubt everything you and CTSW have contributed to these articles. Do you see that? Everyone has a POV, and everyone makes mistakes. That is accepted. But this was taking a quote out of context to the point of making Luther appear to have said exactly the opposite of what he actually said. Then letting it sit there for 18 months, even though you both have easy access to all the primary and secondary source material.
 * Are you or aren't you a specialist in Luther? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 04:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a good one if I have simply taken something at face value without checking up on it. I guess I thought I could trust the secondary source, which is not a good idea in scholarship.--Drboisclair 07:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here, but I've been casually following this debate and frankly I'm amazed at how much time you guys have on your hands :) Is it really necessary to drag this out to the bloody end? Slim, I think you have done a great job making your point, and I think Drboisclair and CTSWyneken should be thoroughly embarrassed by this situation. Whether or not the distrotion was a concious effort or merely a lapse of critical judgement, only Drboisclair and CTSWyneken will know for sure. Trying to force some kind of confession from them doesn't seem to be doing much good, IMO. Yes, I'm sure both of them have a pro-Luther POV (which isn't much of a revelation), but we're not dealing with LaRouche style POV-pushing here. Let's try to keep the discussion productive. Just my 2 cents :) Kaldari 05:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Kaldari, thanks for your opinion, but this goes beyond POV pushing. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 06:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Kaldari, when I asked this editor if he understood why there was a high degree of concern about this major and damaging error, he responded last night: "'high degree of concern' is misrepresentation and slander against CTS and me." This is the kind of in-your-face arrogance that has been the problem here for months on end.
 * Yes, there is now, finally, after massive pressure and lengthy foot-stomping and counter-accusations, something other than deflection and shoulder-shrugging. But I am sorry, this is not just some kid who edited Wiki and made a good faith boo boo. These are professionals and experts in a particular field who are held, or should be held, to a much higher degree of culpability and responsibility. These are individuals who (in contrast to the Essjay controversy) have accurately (I assume) held themselves out to be experts on Martin Luther (see response below). Although holding a strong POV, and taking positions that did not always seem right, non-experts and laypeople like myself were intimidated by their evident expertise (such as the lengthy quotes in German you see here) and did not question that they were accurately putting information in the article.
 * Now it turns out that, in at least one significant instance, it was all a lot of bull and they were pulling out quotes from websites and not properly citing the information. This puts the accuracy of this entire article into question.
 * So yes, this is more than just POV-pushing. --Mantanmoreland 16:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Drboisclair's response

 * Slim Virgin, I can say that I am a Luther scholar, and that my graduate masters degree specializes in Luther, but that does not mean like another editor posted that I have all of Luther memorized. As you have determined: I posted this information in 2005, and I remembered that it had come from a secondary source. In this case I have proven my point that it came from this LCMS 1983 statement. In 2005 I simply posted what it said with the WA citation. I did not look it up because I simply assumed it was true. To my knowledge I never read Luther's final sermon until yesterday. I found out yesterday that the English translation of Luther's final sermon did not contain the quotation that was quoted, but that was because this sermon only went to page 194 in WA 51. I do not have WA 51 at my home, but I do have the St. Louis edition that contains this sermon. I also discovered that Martin Brecht had something to say about it in volume 3 of his Martin Luther, page 350. As you saw I posted the material that does contain the German sentence that was translated by the sentence put into the article. Yesterday was the first time that I have looked at the primary source. This is an innocent mistake in that I did not check it out in 2005. I simply took the LCMS official statement at face value, but, yes, that is not good scholarship. In that I made a mistake. I apologize for not looking up the primary source at the time. You may choose to disbelieve me, but I am telling the truth. I had no idea that this was not the sermon but an appended "Vermahnung". There was no intention of covering anything up. Had I known then what I know now, I would never have posted the information in that manner. I think that it was rightly pointed out that the secondary source should have been cited. That was another mistake. This is all the culpability that I will admit to. I think that the secondary source I have adduced that comes from 1983 shows the probability of what I am saying. To read more into it is unjust and unfair. I have spent many hours on this website, and I like it. I would like to make it a reputable source of information. I do not think that I rate such opprobrium as I am being subjected to. I hope that this is sufficient.--Drboisclair 07:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As you assure us it was an innocent error &mdash; and because you say that, if you knew then what you know now, you would not have made those edits &mdash; I'm prepared to accept your apology and explanation. We all make mistakes.


 * What troubles me greatly about this (which is why I'm continuing to post about it), is that one of the two Luther experts who has written this article has admitted to being employed to develop online resources about Luther. That person, as a librarian in a Luther library, has easy access to all the primary sources. That sermon is famous. A glance at that summary should have been enough to tell him that it was a problematic summary. Even I could see it was problematic, and I know very little about Luther.


 * It's the combination of the payment, the error, and the 18-month overlooking of that error, that troubles me, together with the fact that none of the rest of us has the expertise to correct these errors. I only discovered that one because it seemed so out of character for Luther to speak that way, and that made me suspicious enough to e-mail an independent academic.


 * Do you see how ludicrous it is that we have two Luther experts writing these articles, but I have to e-mail another academic to uncover an obvious error? It's not just this article that's at stake, but all the Luther and Lutheran church articles that have been written by the same editors.


 * This kind of editing also makes the Missouri Synod look bad, do you see that? So it's not only Wikipedia's reputation at stake here.


 * In my experience at Wikipedia, people who are genuine scholars in a field tend to make their articles three dimensional, even if they have a POV themselves, because of intellectual pride. This article on Luther doesn't read as though it was written by a scholar. It reads as though it's a tribute to Luther (apart from the antisemitism section, which neither you nor CTSW wanted to contribute to, except in Luther's defense).


 * I would like something good to come of this episode. One thing you could do is to make sure that all the articles on Luther are as three-dimensional as possible i.e. that they include academic criticism, and that they include material about any of his scandals. We are not in a position to do that easily, because we don't have the baseline knowledge, and we don't have access to the primary or secondary sources. You do. If you could start to write for the enemy sometimes, I think all the Luther articles would be massively improved, to everyone's benefit. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 19:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your comments here. I wish to apologize for my rude post above in which I bitterly accused you. I lost it, and I should have simply provided the requested information. I am not infallible, and I would welcome your request for three dimensionalism. I have learned the lesson of not simply putting something into an article without checking the sources. I have apologized for that. I hope that we can work cooperatively here.--Drboisclair 19:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Drb, look, the other thing that's troubling was CTSW's response when I posted the academic's translation. He demanded to know where it had come from. He didn't say it was correct. He didn't say "thank you for correcting the error." He didn't post the German or do anything helpful. He just demanded to know where it came from, demanded that I find the original German, and so on, even though he had access to the German and probably to a dozen translations. So you see, even at that point, it was obstructionism all the way. Genuine scholars don't behave that way. They take pride in their subject, and they want people to know the truth about it, not read some doctored, slanted whitewash. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 19:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I long for an end of strife here. CTS is a long time Wikipedian, and his concern is to follow WP policies. I hope for cordial, candid, and constructive conversation here, and I humbly request the same. As you can see he has retired for a short while until this can be taken up after a "cooling off" period.--Drboisclair 19:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

What Was The Effect of Putting This False Information in the Martin Luther Articles?
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)
 * 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)


 * 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 <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 19:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * @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)


 * 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 <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 19:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

@Drboisclair, It is called Research. Are you trying to change the subject?Meister Brau 19:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not opposed to research, but we all have to be concerned about "no original research."--Drboisclair 19:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

@Drboisclair, I understand your concern. What would you advise people to do when they believe that the LCMS is not translating some of the controversial works of Martin Luther? Meister Brau 20:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 21:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Vom Schem Hamphoras was never translated into English as far as I know.--Drboisclair 20:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)

How could Dr. Boisclair and Rev. Smith know about the translation into english? It did not appear in Lutheran Quarterly.IreneDunaway 23:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)