Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:12, 27 October 2016

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Occult Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women's History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Feminism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Books This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook

Edited Genesis

I have rewritten a lot of the Genesis part. I include the parts I have removed and my comments on them.

---

However, most modern scholars believe that Jacob Sprenger contributed little if anything to the work besides his illustrious name.

Russell doesn't say this. He says Kramer was the chief author and that Sprenger's role was "minor".

-

In 1484, Kramer had tried to prosecute witchcraft in the bishopric of Trent but was blocked by local ecclesiastical authorities. Kramer requested papal support and attained it via the papal bull Summis desiderantes affectibus, which recognized the existence of witches and gave full papal approval for the Inquisition to prosecute witchcraft.

This is not what Russell says. He talks about both authors requesting a papal bull.

-

However, after local authorities still blocked his attempts, Kramer directed his energies to the composition of the Malleus. He drew on earlier sources like the Johannes Nider's treatise Formicarius, written 1435/37. Kramer used the papal bull as the preface for the Malleus, giving the false impression that Innocent VIII had endorsed the Malleus when in fact the bull had endorsed Kramer as an inquisitor and not his (then unwritten) work.

Kramer and Sprenger submitted the Malleus Maleficarum to the University of Cologne’s Faculty of Theology on May 9, 1487, hoping for its endorsement. Instead, the faculty condemned it as both unethical and illegal because the demonology it contained was inconsistent with Catholic doctrine.

Nevertheless, Kramer inserted an endorsement from the University into subsequent editions. The Catholic Church eventually banned the book entirely, placing it on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum.

After reading the preface in whole I see no indication that the bull was placed there for other reasons than showing papal support for the existence of witches, witch trials and for the two authors. This seems to either unsourced or refers to the Jenny Gibbons piece which is itself totally unsourced and includes claims which are not supported by for example Russell and Mackey. I am removing all traces of it. I am removing the reference to the Index of banned books because it seems like a regional Spanish list and not and offical papal one. I have searched in vain for the book on the offical Indexes but found none. I could be wrong so please check this out for me. I haven't found any mention off it in the books I have.

Óli Gneisti (talk) 11:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

According to this it was banned in 1707 which after the main witch craze was over: http://www.beaconforfreedom.org/search/censored_publications/publication.html?id=9700509 Óli Gneisti (talk) 14:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Russell (1972), 230
2. Russell, 229.
3. Bailey (2003), 30
4. History of the Malleus Maleficarum by Jenny Gibbons
5. Index librorum prohibitorum et expurgandorum novissimus pro catholicis Hispaniarum regnis Philippi IV, regis cathol. / ill. ac R.D.D. Antonii a Sotomaior ... jussu ac studiis, luculenter & vigilantissimè recognitus, de Consilio Supremi Senatus Inquisitionis Generalis ; iuxta exemplar excusum. (Madriti : Ex typographaeo Didaci Diaz, 1667.)

Jacob Sprenger's role

The article on demonology says that the Malleus maleficarum was "once thought" to have been co-written by Jacob Sprenger. Can some expert clarify this inconsistency between the two articles?

65.96.178.162 22:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

The book wasn't co-written by Jacob Sprenger. Jacob Sprenger was just added as auther to make the work look more trustworthy.

--80.62.126.100 17:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree on the fact that the Malleus Maleficarum was not supported by the church or the inquisition.

I also disagree. I would like to see some references to this. - Scythe000 (kenmay@kenmay.net) Scythe000 05:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

latin

anyone know if the latin is available somewhere online?

Not sure if this is the right way to answer your question, but yes, there is. Here's the link: http://historical.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/witch/docviewer?did=060 Snelle Fjöll 18:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a new edition that is supposed to be coming out in early 2007, translated by Christopher W. MacKay. It's in two volumes: the first is Latin with glosses, and the second is supposed to be an all-new English translation. Summers was very partisan and his translation is generally seen as suspect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.241.134.56 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Included texts

I have added this note based on the book by W.E.H.Leckey and it was deleted by user 205.188.117.67: "The book includes texts by a lot of theologians of the 14th and 15th century, e.g. Johannes Nider, Bernard Basin, Ulrich Molitor, Jean Gerson, Thomas Murner, Bartolomeo Spina, Johannes Laurentius, Bernardus Comensis, Paulus Grillandus and others." Do you consider that incorrect or irrelevant? User: Aloysius

no, I consider it relevant. Put it back. It is information that contributes to the background of the book.

Length

I feel that this article needs to be broken down into smaller sections, as the text is rather long and overwhelming. The archbisquick 21:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Not supported by the catholic church?

Is there any confirmation of the claims that the church approval was forged? This view seems to come from the essay by "jenny gibbons." That reference also says she is an historian, yet there is no mention of credentials, and it is "the accepted view among scholars," although the site it links to is a commercial non-academic site, with no references for its claims. I suggest that it be removed, or edited until better confirmation.

It seems that the Papal bull was from 1484. Hans Peter Broedel states in his recent work The Malleus Maleficarum and the Construction of Witchcraft that the Malleus was mostly written by Institoris (Kramer) in reaction to an incident that took place in October 1485; if his assertion is accurate, then the Pope could not have known the content of the Malleus before writing the bull. In any case, the earliest publication date I've seen for the Malleus was two years after the bull. So it's unlikely that it was written as justification for the content of the Malleus.

The article states that it specifically gives inquisitional powers to Kramer and Sprenger. However, their names are not mentionned in the papal bull. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.65.153.52 (talk) 09:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

your last sentence is false (verified in primary source) --Asterixf2 (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Removed Sentence

I have re-removed the following "sentence", the deletion (not by me) of which was erroneously identified as vandalism:

However was suppoted for the catholic church comdemed all those who were not priest as followers of the devil.

I have removed it because it is very bad English indeed (two misspellings, incorrect capitalization, poor grammar and syntax); I cannot even make enough sense of it to reword it. Presumably, it was previously removed for the same reason. -- EmmetCaulfield 19:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Link added

http://www.malleusmaleficarum.org/ added to links, since there was no link to an English translation.Hodgson 19:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Jacob Sprenger

The entry dedicated to Sprenger denies his participation in the authorship of the Malleus. We must be consistent. 201.51.221.78 22:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

What sources used in each?--195.7.55.146 15:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a lot of scholarly dispute about Sprenger's authorship. It is pretty clear that it was written in one style and voice (though that could be a matter of translation), and it seems to fixate on a lot of the sexual overtones that Institoris (Kramer) has been known for. See also Hans Peter Broedel's recent work, The Malleus Maleficarum and the Construction of Witchcraft.

sexual aspect is tracable to aquinas treatment of witchcraft --Asterixf2 (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Sources?

This article seems to be in desperate need of some citations, as I'm finding it very hard to assess the veracity of its content. The "historian" link goes to a very short essay in which no credentials are given for the author, and no further sources are cited.

Addendum: credentials are cited, though not very accessibly. The author of the piece has a Master's degree in the field . Still, no sources are given in that particular piece, so something more scholarly may inspire more confidence in the assertion that what she presents is the "accepted view among scholars". (This is not my field, I don't even know if there is a single "accepted view among scholars" - but if there is, it should be possible to document it properly.)

Second addendum: these claims have been challenged before , and readded on the basis that the author of the piece is not a Catholic, and the unsupported claim that hers is the mainstream academic view . Since this article contains seemingly controversial information that is obviously not sufficiently sourced, I believe it should be tagged as needing improvement; I'd be grateful if someone who knows an appropriate tag for this(and agrees) could add it to the article.

Hopefully, someone knowledgeable in the field can resolve this by citing some trustworthy academic sources - I'd very much like to know what actually is the accepted view here. 80.202.98.194 02:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

POV

Incredible! Well, seems like something bad happened... This article is a myth. Based on an essay with no sources of its revolutionary claims There are hundreds of articles based on this one already on the web. This article should be DELETED!--Hapala 23:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The website from which all the incredible information are.... My links declare opposite facts compared to those in the article...--Hapala 00:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Community ban of the Joan of Arc vandal

This article has been targeted in recent weeks by CC80, a sockpuppet of the Joan of Arc vandal. This and similar articles may be targeted again by other sockpuppets of the same person.

A vandal who has damaged Misplaced Pages's Catholicism, Christianity, cross-dressing, and homosexuality articles for over two years has been identified and community banned. This person will probably attempt to continue disruption on sockpuppet accounts. Please be alert for suspicious activity. Due to the complexity of this unusual case, the best place to report additional suspicious activity is probably to my user talk page because I was the primary investigating administrator. Durova 17:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Pop Culture/trivia

The "MM" figures in some of the work of H.P. Lovecraft and is mentioned at least once in Joss Whedon's Buffy the Vampire Slayer TV series.

Basesurge 10:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Which Witch

I find the inclusion of this bit of information a bit tasteless. The article is a very serious one about an appalling book which caused the death of literally thousands of women and enshrined institutional misogyny in Western theocracy for generations to come. Including a precis of a rather facile musical seems a little crass. ThePeg 16:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Pop culture / trivia sections are both pernicious and not a place to go looking for good editorial judgement. You could just be bold and remove it. Jkelly

I too found inappropriate the inclusion of pop culture/trivia so i decided to go ahead and be bold and delete. Wichienmaat 08:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a shame that this was removed. A friend of mine came looking for this connection here, and told me he couldn't find it, so I decided to take a look myself, certain I had found the information here myself long ago. The subject interests me, so I was hoping to find other references to Mallerus in contemporary culture and art. GenderLine

Legal validity

However it does become somewhat valid if the word witch is replaced with "communist" or "terrorist".

This section seems vague and it is unclear to me why this was added. It seems to be a polemic comment, rather than a genuine contribution to the article, as the "Malleus Maleficarum" surely has no legal validity today. The link between the book an "red-baiting" witchhunts or anti-terrorism does not hold. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shadowhunter98 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was rather surprised when I read that section. Since it wasn't really ever a legal document in the first place (as I understand it), I don't see how this could even be a relevant section. While there are certainly parallels between witch hunts and red scares and anti-terrorism (and the Cultural Revolution, and Stalinist purges, and Germany under the third reich, etc.), this article hardly seems the place for such arguments. I've decided to be bold and delete it. Blurble 02:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The section was unsourced, original research, and crystal-ball gazing. --Jtir 12:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

What I meant was that if a modern version were ever printed, "terrorist" could easily replace "witch" and still make some sense. I know it wasn't a legal document and more of a how-to/guidebook, but I couldn't think of what else to name the section. "Why this book makes sense in a modern context" sounds more like the title of a term paper. --Guthrie 16:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

WP policy says we can't do original research, so we have to find a verifiable source that makes your point. As to your hypothetical term paper:

• British playwright Caryl Churchill's 1976 play Vinegar Tom quotes from the Malleus and has characters named Sprenger and Kramer. (The WP article on Vinegar Tom needs to be expanded to make this clear.)

--Jtir 17:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"The" Malleus Maleficarum?

Doesn't the Latin phrase "Malleus Maleficarum" already have a "the" integrated? So saying "the" Malleus Maleficarum is surely redudant EamonnPKeane 18:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. Translator Montague Summers consistently uses "the Malleus Maleficarum" (or simply "the Malleus") in his 1928 and 1948 introductions. I have added a note. --Jtir 17:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It's 'The'... that is to say, the particular object is a book, either 'The' book, or 'The' Malleus Maleficarum. You could drop the 'The' if indeed you wrote or spoke in latin, not simply used latin as the pronoun. Editorcomm (talk) 06:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Gutenberg and "original sin"

I'm sorry, but this bit is polemical nonsense and should be removed: "swift propagation of the witch hysteria by the press was the first evidence that Gutenberg had not liberated man from original sin" Heavily ironic POV is not approprate to an encyclopedia. Non-Christians do not recognise "original sin" anyway, and so far as I know, Gutenberg did not have its abolition as an aim? If one believes that all religious belief is a form of irrationality, then the first hysteria spread by the printing press was not "Malleus Maleficarum", but the new relgious fanaticism caused by the printing of venacular bibles. After all, one could argue that printing caused the Reformation, and that effectively caused a terrible European civil war. I am grateful for our present freedoms, but our ancestors paid an awful price for them. Think about it :) Sasha 08:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The article cites Russell, p. 234, for this passage, Russell is a verifiable source, and he appears to be a reliable source. Fact checking appears to be needed. The books is online here. --Jtir 18:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

After fact checking Russell, I made this edit. The article now very clearly states that these are Russell's words, not the words of the WP editors. Even so, I'm not sure that the passage really helps the article — irony taken out of context is highly likely to be misinterpreted. --Jtir 19:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

discuss the English translations in the article?

There might be enough material to discuss the English translations in the article. Both of these sources are listed in the References. (I don't have access to them.)

• Hamilton, Alastair (May 2007)
• Mackay, Christopher S. (2006)

A reviewer of Mackay's edition at amazon.com describes the Summers edition as "woefully inaccurate". This review can't be used as a source, but it does suggest that there might be a reliable source saying the same thing. --Jtir 21:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of translations, the figure caption "the hammer of witches with a mighty spear" seems surprising. I did a quick search and found a somewhat similar biblical quote, Jer 23:29, "numquid non verba mea sunt quasi ignis ait Dominus et quasi malleus conterens petram", which is translated (KJV) to "Is not my word like as a fire? saith the LORD; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?" I assume that conterens must mean something like "break in pieces" - there's definitely no "spear" in that translation. Mike Serfas 20:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for "pointing" this out. I have tagged the translation with {{fact}}. A cursory check of Summers didn't reveal a translation. Maybe Mackay? A search of Summers for "conterens" finds his translation in this note to his his 1928 intro. --Jtir 21:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

"framea" can be translated as "a spear, javelin, used by the ancient Germans" or, in later Latin, as "a sword".

"conterens" is an inflected form of "contero", which means "to grind, bruise, pound, wear out".

--Jtir 11:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Weasel Word?

What does it mean to be "arguably" one of the most famous texts? Call it the most famous. Say it is among the most famous. But telling me, the reader, that it is "arguably" the best, the most famous, the most flavorful tells me nothing. Kjdamrau 02:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Ken Damrau

Number of editions

In the Genesis section, it says that the volume was published 13 times between 1487 and 1520. However, in the Consequences section, it states that 20 editions were published in the same period. Obviously, only one of these can be correct. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 06:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Objections to the use of the adjective "medieval"

A comment about the beginning of the article - I cite:

"The Malleus Maleficarum(Latin for "The Hammer of Witches", or "Hexenhammer" in German) is one of the most famous medieval treatises on witches. It was written in 1486 by Heinrich Kramer and Jacob Sprenger, and was first published in Germany in 1487. It was the culmination of a long medieval tradition of treatises on witchcraft, the most famous being the Formicarius by Johannes Nider in 1435-1437."

I have objections to the use of the adjective "medieval". It seems to have been mechanically used because the misconception that the witch hunts were a primarily medieval phenomenon is still abroad. As is clear from the content of the cited sentences themselves, however, the Malleus itself is in fact a Renaissance work (written in 1486 and becoming an influence during the next century). Lower down in this same article, we find a link to the article 'late Middle Ages', where this period is defined as running from 1300-1500 with the 15th century described as a transition period between the middle ages and the renaissance. A usual year mentioned as marker of the end of the Middle Ages, I may add, is 1452 - the year of the fall of Constantinople and the Eastern Roman Empire. As for the statement about the Malleus being "the culmination of a long medieval tradition of treatises on witchcraft", this seems rather doubtful considering that the medieval church held the belief in witches to be a superstition (in 1090, it declared three women burned for witchcraft in Munich martyrs - I have this information from an article by Gustav Henningsen "Kan hekse flyve" (= "Do witches fly?"). G. H. is a Danish professor specializing in the witch hunts; he has also written articles in english and spanish which can be found on the web and are highly recommendable. He also cites a letter from pope Gregory VII to the Danish king Harald Hen urging the king to stop his people from keeping up the barbarous custom of accusing women of causing storms and diseases and executing them. Storms and diseases are God's will, says the Pope, and people should not go about accusing other people about them.) Well, considering, I would like to see earlier titles on these "medieval treatises" or have the text changed. The only one mentioned from the allegedly long tradition is a work from - 1435. As it stands, I suggest a replacement of the use of the adjective "medieval" with "renaissance" or "early modern" where appropriate.

Another thing: I have a comment to the question asked by someone further up about a "the" inherent in the latin "Malleus maleficarum" - no, there is nothing incorrect or "double" about writing "The malleus". Latin generally doesn't use articles (the pronoun 'ille/illa/illud' (meaning 'that one') may be used as such, however, and is the word that later develops into the article in for instance italian (il/la)). But it doesn't follow that "Malleus maleficarum" written alone automatically means "The m. m.", it may be translated with or without the article according to the meaning of the sentence around it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.81.106.89 (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful and informed comments. I agree that "medieval" is vague and misleading, and believe that it could be eliminated entirely by simply citing specific years for specific works. The lead has yet another problem. It says: " was the culmination", with "the most famous being the Formicarius". Wouldn't the one that is the "culmination" be the most famous? I suggest dropping all the superlatives unless a direct quote from a verifiable and reliable source can be found. --Jtir (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Please Be bold. Anything is better than middle ages in 1487. (typing error: 1487+11=1498) Elephx4 (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Where did you read "1498"? --Jtir (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Author name

The name of one of the authors mentioned appears to be Maxwell-Stuart, not Maxwell-Stewart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.164.46 (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Supposed Banning of Malleus Maleficarum

I just noticed what seems to be a date contradiction in this article.

The article states, "The Catholic Church banned the book in 1490, placing it on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum." However, the article Index Librorum Prohibitorum itself states that "The first list of the kind was not published in Rome, but in Roman Catholic Netherlands (1529). Venice (1543) and Paris (1551, under the terms of the Edict of Châteaubriant) followed this example. The first Roman Index was the work of Pope Paul IV (1557, 1559)." This is corroborated by : "The first official censorship had come in 1559 with the publication of the Index auctorum et librorum prohibitorum under the direction of Pope Paul IV. The Pauline index, as it became known, was the first in a long succession of papal indexes, forty-two in all." See also .

If the first Index came out a few decades into the 1500s, how was the Malleus Maleficarum listed in one around 1490? Could someone resolve this issue perhaps?

-- 137.155.202.26 (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Presumably its impossible for it to have been in the Index at that time, then? (Certainly, the claim about 1490 does come without any citation). No mention of this censorship is made in either of the recent translations of Malleus, nor in Summers' edition. I checked in a copy of the Index at my school's library, and the Malleus does show up in there, but our edition is only from 1666. So until someone can actually provide a precise date, I am changing the entry to reflect what is known: that at some point the book was banned. (talk) 10:11, 18 August 2008 (EST)

I have searched in vain for a listing for Malleus on various versions of the Index and found none. I wonder if the Index you are referring to is simply a Spanish version and not official "papal".Óli Gneisti (talk) 10:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

This is suspicious. It was widely used. Please also provide information if it was banned in practice or only in theory (for example quietly) to assure neutral point of view. --Asterixf2 (talk) 06:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

New Translation

It appears a new translation is out , by Christopher Mackay. Also, there is an interview with him at in which he discusses some aspects of the book and its history. He questions the work of the original translator. - 137.155.202.26 (talk) 20:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Recursive Reference & Genesis Section in General

I'm removing http://www.malleusmaleficarum.org/index.html as a citation for the banning of the book since it has two references: 1) Original version of the page, which does not mention the banning, and 2) This very article. Am I wrong in thinking this means the article is using itself as a reference? I'm replacing it with another link to the Jenny Gibbons reference, which makes the point (and is interestingly from the same domain as the original citation).

I'm also going to place a "section has issues" template on the Genesis section in general, as there has been dispute in the past and on this talk page about some of its points, and there needs to be better citation in general and I for one dispute the neutrality of the Gibbons reference.

If I'm overstepping myself here, may someone promptly delete the notice!

-- 137.155.202.26 (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Can someone fix the citation so it doesn't spawn a new number for the same reference? I'm not sure how. -- 137.155.202.26 (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

-- Actually I misread, sorry, Gibbons does not make this point... - 137.155.202.26 (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Mixed Metaphor

The title claims that it is The Hammer of Witches which destroyeth Witches and their heresy like a most powerful spear. A hammer is one thing. A spear is another thing altogether. They are mixed together in the title. This is a reflection on the intelligence of the authors.Lestrade (talk) 04:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

I would have stuck with just the hammer image; the spear metaphor is a bit too pointed. --TEHodson 09:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that mixed metaphors weren't roundly condemned as bad style until the nineteenth century. Is Shakespeare's suggestion of "taking arms against a sea of troubles" instead of a "host of troubles" a reflection of his low intelligence?  ;) Elmo iscariot (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

strange claims

"It also mentions astrology and astronomy, which had recently been reintroduced to the West by the ancient works of Pythagoras."

Sounds like lot of nonsense to me, because no writings by Pythagoras survive. Not to mention that astrology and astronomy certainly were not recent, whatever that is supposed to mean, (re)introductions. 77.233.65.178 (talk) 02:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Malleus Maleficarum, a humanistic work?

I noticed this in the article, and my mind was thrown, at first into abject confusion, then into some mild anger: "The Malleus Maleficarum was heavily influenced by humanistic ideologies."

Perhaps it's noteworthy to say that it was guided by an interpretation of Aristotelian logic, sure. There is reasoning, of a sort, involved. But the ideologies that informed and influenced the general theme of this work? Humanistic? No, thanks, this was a grade-A example of theistic reasoning made manifest, and had little to do with any kind of humanism I've heard of. The fact that the Malleus mentions astrology and astronomy doesn't imply that these are thematic, nor does it make this work 'Humanistic'. A rather painless perusal of the 'contents' section makes it quite obvious where the influence lies. Being new to Misplaced Pages, I haven't been so bold as to edit the article myself; in this, I'd like to invite someone with more experience under their belt to do so.

Although it is my own personal inclination, I'm not suggesting that the sentence or paragraph be rewritten to reflect the thoroughly theistic, religious nature of this work. I'm only arguing for the removal of something as blatantly ridiculous as the suggestion that the Malleus was 'heavily' influenced by any kind of humanism as the term is understood. -AlsoSprach 4AUG11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlsoSprach (talk • contribs) 12:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Removed External Link

Just removed a link to a review hosted on theanarchistlibrary.org (review published in Green Anarchist #30). Felt like the review is biased and comes form a specific viewpoint and is not critical. Reading through, admittedly only skimming the last quarter, the review focuses more on various aspects of heresy, witchcraft, and anarchism throughout the timeperiod than on this book, Malleus Maleficarum. And do believe this removal is inline with WP:ExtLinks, any objections? Birdman1011395 (talk) 10:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, here's the link in question: http://www.theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Anonymous__The_Malleus_Maleficarum___The_Hammer_of_Witches__A_Review.html Birdman1011395 (talk) 10:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Removal of inappropriate section IV in "Contents"

An editor previously added an extra section, section IV, to the "Contents" section. The MM only has three parts, and the text added for the new section is a POV comment on the historical significance of MM, which is inappropriate for this particular part of the entry in any case. See https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Malleus_Maleficarum&diff=prev&oldid=492327217 I have reverted the section to its original state by removing the previously added heading and text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.144.193.189 (talk) 11:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect comments in major themes section?

"Indeed, the very title of the Malleus Maleficarum is feminine, alluding to the idea that it was women who were the villains. Otherwise, it would be the Malleus Maleficorum (the masculine form of the Latin noun maleficus or malefica, 'witch'). In Latin, the feminine "Maleficarum" would only be used for women while the masculine "Maleficorum" could be used for men alone or for both sexes if together. This assertion by Maxwell-Stewart is not definitive for it would be centuries before spelling would become standardized through the process of English-language spelling reform"

That first sentence doesn't really have the right tone for an encyclopedia, does it?

More importantly, isn't the last sentence, well, incorrect. The standardisation of spelling in English is an entirely separate issue to the standardisation of spelling in Latin. And the difference between an a and an o in this position is meaningful -- in the same way as writing "actresses" to describe a group of women, and "actors" to describe a group of men and women (leaving aside the increasing use of "actor" to describe a man or woman) -- so the writer should be aware of using an a or an o. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.155.146 (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree about the "English spelling reform" sentence. Latin spelling was quite standardized at this time, mistakes nonwithstanding, and differs only subtly from classical Latin as far as I know. Anyways it is a question of inflection -- the a and o are not mere equivalents. I'm taking it out.--♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Factors stimulating widespread use

The following sentence does not make sense:

That printing should have been invented thirty years before the first publication of the Malleus, which instigated the fervor of witch hunting, and, in the words of Russell, "the swift propagation of the witch hysteria by the press was the first evidence that Gutenberg had not liberated man from original sin."

I am tempted to delete it, because I am unsure what point it is attempting to make, but that Russell quote is a nice one. What is the first half of the sentence trying to get at?

--125.237.154.120 (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The sentence probably addresses matters of circulation. Before the printing press, all copies of a book had to be hand-written in manuscript form. A rather time-consuming method which always placed a strain on circulation. The discovery of the printing press made it much easier to print books and pamphlets (the predecessors of periodicals). Both allowing wider circulation for them and making it easier to spread their ideas to a wider audience.

In the case of Malleus Maleficarum, "Between the years 1487 and 1520 the work was published thirteen times. It was again published between the years of 1574 to 1669 a total of sixteen times." Wide circulation, wide spreading of its ideas, and major contribution to "the witch hysteria". Dimadick (talk) 09:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

"In Accordance with Pagan Rites"

I've removed the following text:

"Folk belief in reality of witchcraft had been denied by the church in earlier centuries; Charlemagne had specifically outlawed the old practice of witch burning "in accordance with pagan rites" since witchcraft was originally viewed by many early medieval Christians as a pagan superstition.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/carol-saxony.asp|title=Medieval Sourcebook: Charlemagne: Capitulary for Saxony 775-790|publisher=Fordham University|accessdate=2009-05-01}}</ref>"

The link is a primary source. And this is basically nonsense. Accusations of demonic influence are part and parcel for Christianity, a core element of the belief system. Secondly, such edicts must be approached with caution and must be presented in context. Charlemagne and his court were, for example, infamously hostile to the paganism(s) they sought to eradicate. The Bible, for example, has a few choice comments on killing "witches" that were rather helpful in the murder of over 60,000 innocents on record in medieval Europe.

On that note, studies in this area suffer from inappropriate glossing conventions. "Witch" is by no means an appropriate "catch-all" gloss for a 'malevolent magic user' or a 'demonically influenced individual', a combination of the two being the usual definition employed in a post-Christianization context. This is obviously not the definition you're going to find in the non-dualistic, pre-Christian societies that Charlemagne, for example, sought to Christianize (see, for example, völva for a very different societal role for the "witch"). Most related articles here also suffer from this issue—confusion and poor sourcing—and need to be rewritten from scratch. Considering the grim legacy of this particular volume, this is a good place to start. I just wish I had more time on my hands. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The source supports the information given, and serves to highlight why, even if you disagree with it on the basis of it being a Christian source. The article does not say that "pagans burned witches", but that Charlemagne gave this rationale, something that is veritably accurate. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 02:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR. Charlemagne did not and does not speak for Christiandom. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not WP:OR, and if you feel that it is, then the answer is to reword it so that it is not, as opposed to removing it entirely, because the part directly sourced, Charlemagne had specifically outlawed the old practice of witch burning "in accordance with pagan rites", is directly supported by a reliable source. That's not WP:OR. It is sourced, it is relevant, and it is staying in the article because WP:OR does not warrant removing it. Do not remove it again without a consensus to do so. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 05:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

What on earth does this article have to do with Charlemagne? Exactly how do you suppose that this single statement by Charlemagne's court supports your personal conclusion that "Folk belief in reality of witchcraft had been denied by the church in earlier centuries"? That's WP:OR. And exactly why is this particular reference being cherry picked to make some sort of point? It's off topic and misleading. I can, in response, tell you to quit re-adding it. It takes two. Meanwhile I'll just tag the page. It's already a mess. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

So now you've tagged the first part of the statement for a citation and kept the Charlemagne part in. It's still totally unclear what Charlemagne has to do with anything. This is exactly the sort of tomfoolery that has made Misplaced Pages into a war ground where one has to sit down and set up camp to edit these days and why it's still a game of roulette whether one will find a solid article on a topic they're searching for or an article that exists 'just to have an article on the topic'. Meanwhile, on so many articles, no matter what one does, someone without a half thought is ready to revert another simply because they can. And then again. And then again. Inevitably, either a day from nor or years from now, all of the half-assed arm chair monkeying around that this article is composed of will be completely rewritten by someone who can take the time out to get a hold of the appropriate sources and spend the appropriate time actually putting together something appropriate for such an important topic. It's a real shame that all of the related articles seem to be just as bad. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not my "personal conclusion", and such an attribution serves no purpose, nor does your rant. That the first sentence is unsourced means it's unsourced, it doesn't make a subsequent, sourced sentence WP:OR. It is WP:OR if "no reliable, published sources exist" to support the claim. These sources exist to support at least the first sentence. Witches and Witch-Hunts: A Global History by Wolfgang Behringer supports the information in the bit you removed. It's currently unsourced, that doesn't make it WP:OR. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 05:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Before playing sherif, you might want to at least get some basic familiarity with the topic we're discussing. First, Charlemagne has nothing to do with the topic of this article. That needs to go, but that'll have to wait thanks to your bungling presence. Next, this nonsense about Saxons burning "witches" (note that we're—absurdly—even using a pointless gloss here) is directly attributed to Charlemagne's court. Charlemagne's court, folks. Aoidh/Sudo, you're doing no good here. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The Canon Episcopi appears to be yet another example that supports the content in the article. I would think canon law reflects the Church's opinion. You should read WP:OR more thoroughly before criticizing others of "bungling", and suggesting that others are unfamiliar with the topic only highlights your own ignorance, since you don't know what I know about the subject; such worthless speculation does you no favors. The article does not say "Saxons were burning witches", it says that Charlemagne outlawed the practice of witch burning "in accordance with pagan rites". Charlemagne is given as an example of early viewpoints on the matter. I hope with the "it'll have to wait" comment you're not suggesting that you're going to wait ~24 hours before reverting simply to avoid 3RR. You've given no cause to remove it other than your flawed WP:OR reasoning; it is not WP:OR, so that reasoning does not apply. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 06:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, look what you found. Enough with the boy detective act. Get yourself a decent secondary source and let others hold your hand. Or at least read the material you're bringing up: The Canon Episcopi, for example, makes it clear that belief among Christians—who compose "the church"—was quite alive and well at the time (roughly contemporarily, for example, Wulfstan, a member of "the church", complains about the influence of witches in his Sermo Lupi ad Anglos—not so simple, folks). It, of course, continued to be. Then there's the issue of what exactly is being said here: Demonic influence was thought to be alive and well by the church bureaucracy. And what were these pagans and "witches" doing? Generally collaborating with and/or being misled by demons, according to the church. Witchcraft and divination in the Hebrew Bible and all. Nothing new here. Have you spent any time with the subject of this article, the Malleus Maleficarum? If so, what's it about again?

The apologetic tone here might be funny if it were on some other site, but in reality this is a complicated topic with a big mess of issues, starting with terminology and definition. Thereafter you have the issue of what was and was not church policy(-ies) depended on time and place, while demonic influence and anti-heathen and anti-"heretic" sentiment remained a constant. Of course, had you a foot in this material, you might have picked up on these intricacies, realized that the material needs to be removed, and thus we wouldn't be having this discussion. Meanwhile, the bit about "folk belief" remains uncited (it is, of course, WP:OR), and you continue to threaten me with a handy mod badge. Or should I be warning you about reverts? Sudo, watch out for your reverts! Wait 24 hours. Of course you knew that. As I did. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

You appear to have nothing to warrant removing the content, so you've resorted to name-calling and continue to show a lack of understanding of WP:OR. If that's all you have, this discussion appears to have run its course. You can grasp at straws all day, it won't remove the content from the article. For you sake, please discuss things civilly with others; incivility doesn't mask the lack of a decent rationale. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 06:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Or you could read my response above, where I kindly spell it out for you, and even provide some nice examples. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

All I see is hand-waving, incivility, and pointless accusations. You have provided nothing to warrant removing the content, so again, this discussion appears to have run its course. Unless you have something useful to offer that would explain why the content would need to be removed, it's not going to be. "It's not perfect" is cause to adjust as necessary, not to remove verifiable content outright, especially with an incorrect application of WP:OR. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 06:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Considering it's a statement contradicted by, for example, Sermo Lupi ad Anglos and, well, basic tenants of the religion itself (Witchcraft and divination in the Hebrew Bible), and the existence of WP:PROVEIT, I'm beginning to think there's something more going on here with your actions than the article content itself. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Sources have been given, that you seemed to have missed that is your problem. Saying that Sermo Lupi ad Anglos and the tenants of the religion itself contradict the content is WP:OR, unless you can provide a reliable source that says so. That your ignorance about myself continues is also your problem, and yours alone. If you think there is a problem, take it to WP:ANI; put up or shut up. I'm waiting for the sources to show that you aren't spewing out WP:OR. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 06:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

No, you're still linking directly to the Charlemagne edict. And that's all. You've provided no additional sources. Meanwhile, I've provided various primary sources that contradict your direct linking to Charlemagne's edict. And you've removed the OR tags. I'll thank you to quit removing the tags until the issue is resolved. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that you continue to ignore what WP:OR actually says, I've added a source that settles one of the tags, and already linked one in this discussion for the first OR tag you've added. The information you provided does nothing to contradict that first sentence, or any of the content, really. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 07:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

—Did you even read this? This does not say what you seem to think it says. You seem to have gotten stuck at "Nevertheless, into the tenth and eleventh centuries, Christian authorities continued to think that of magic primarily in terms of remnants of pagan beliefs and practices". Which, of course, had you dug around a little deeper, you would find that this would often be attributed to the influence of demons. Satan, y'all. And did you even read the canon Episcopi? It doesn't mention "witches", it does dismiss a specific incident involving a "Diana", but it also does demand for the annihilation of devil-"invented" magic being performed by people from Christian areas. In other words: church sanctioned witch-hunting. You're wasting your time and mine here. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have a problem with your assumptions on what other people know and have done. A little less speculation on your part would have saved you a lot of trouble from the very beginning. Your constant tagging does nothing to improve the situation; the large tags you added above serve that purpose, adding a tag to any little edit made is nothing short of disruptive. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 07:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. You go to my talk page and warn me about 3RR while I'm talking to you on this talk page. Then you violate 3RR (). Knowing what you've done and just as I am taking it to the appropriate board, you revert yourself with a summary commenting on how I should be blocked instead (). And now you're complaining to me about me tagging the unreferenced material as "disruptive" after I point out that you apparently haven't read the material you're mentioning, the reference contradicting the text you're attaching to? Who, exactly, is being "disruptive" here? All this after I've pointed out your employment of an primary source—an edict of Charlemagne's court—for a broad statement it does not support, and after I've gone out of my way to provide you with counter examples. Come on. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

When you misread WP:OR to such an extent, then apply your own WP:OR with primary sources of your own, laced with incivility, accusations, and snide remarks, I'm not really concerned with your opinions outside of the content, which have been sorely lacking. Your "counter-examples" don't contradict the content in the article, how would they? And yes, tagging every little edit that gets made is nothing short of disruptive, as is your conduct on the talk page. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 07:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Uh, well, for example, Wulfstan was a member of "the church", for example. Second, the canon Episcopi flatly recommends hunting down those who use 'devil magic' and all. Of course, there's no shortage of quoting those exact bible verses I mentioned above in any of these sources. Edits snuggled in with a single reference to Charlemagne and an apparently unread reference are going to need to be tagged so people can figure out what the issue is. Meanwhile here we are. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you truly that unfamiliar with editing on Misplaced Pages? What was the point of you adding the large tags above, if you're subsequently going to tag everything you disagree with? The larger tags serve the purpose, and the talk page points out the specifics. But if that's how you want to do this, that's fine, but it still isn't going to get the content removed by any means. You cherry-picking a primary source (weren't you saying that should be avoided?) is irrelevant. The content needs to be improved, certainly. However, it doesn't need to be and won't be removed. It's relevant to the article and the more sources I'm reading the more relevant it's becoming. The Charlemagne example might not be that critical, but the rest of it appears to be quite relevant to the article. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 07:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah, really unfamiliar with editing Misplaced Pages. Doesn't my user page make that perfectly clear?

Of course, this page needs the appropriate background. Meanwhile you've still got "the canon Episcopi condemned belief in witchcraft" on the article while you're aware that it says exactly the opposite. Way to improve the article.

Obviously there wasn't some aversion to the idea of "demon-influenced" or "demon-empowered" magic-wielders (later referred to by a variety of names, and nowadays known in English as "witches") in the early church, nor in the 10th century. This is clear not only by the source you attempted to apply but also in, well, any number of other serious works on the topic.

I suppose that, eventually, if you are indeed interested in this topic and not just into talk page conflicts, you'll dig into this and figure out what nonsense you've been shoveling. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not interested in you your talk page, which is what you initially said. I'm similarly not interested in your "only when it's convenient for me" double-standards. This discussion has quickly gone nowhere; you have made your case, such as it is, and it has no basis in any Misplaced Pages guideline or policy, including the very one you cited. When faced with that, you turned to insults and hand-waving about what some other sources say as if they contradict the content; they do not. That you persistently failed to address that point speaks volumes. You can continue to be petty and tag the article until you are blue in the face; the content is staying in the article. That it needs work is not being questioned, but to claim that the subject warrants removal entirely suggests that you haven't actually looked into the subject at all, or that you are deliberately choosing to ignore that information. I don't know which one it is and I don't care; such reasoning is flawed and the content will not be removed simply because you object to it. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 08:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I guess you'd need some sort of footing in this area for us to go any further. Or at least a desire to actually read the sources you've dug up. Meanwhile I'll just wait for someone with some specialized knowledge with the topic to come along to discuss this with. Have a nice day/night. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree; I think a third-party might be needed, either way I don't think the two of us are going to come to any agreement without at minimum a complete re-write of the section. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 08:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• I've rewritten the opening of that disputed section and removed the tag. Eric Corbett 22:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Malleus Maleficarum/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 04:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 22:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Malleus Maleficarum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090718110138/http://www.malleusmaleficarum.org/mm00c.html to http://www.malleusmaleficarum.org/mm00c.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070607182655/http://www.malleusmaleficarum.org:80/mm00b.html to http://www.malleusmaleficarum.org/mm00b.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Aquinas about witchcraft 13th century

The first corruption of sin whereby man became the slave of the devil was transmitted to us by the act of the generative power, and for this reason God allows the devil to exercise his power of witchcraft in this act more than in others. Even so the power of witchcraft is made manifest in serpents more than in other animals according to Genesis 3, since the devil tempted the woman through a serpent.

— Summa Theologicae

--Asterixf2 (talk) 09:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

See Canon_Episcopi#Reception and WP:PRIMARY. An editor's interpretation of a single phrase from a primary source does not outweigh a professional secondary source's assessment of broader trends. Even if it did, the passage you cite does explicitly contradict the notion that the witches were only experiencing delusions or illusions, but rather suggests that sex and serpents serve as the devil-empowered hallucinogens. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I am convinced you are wrong, but I have not reverted this for now. --Asterixf2 (talk) 09:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

It does not matter what you believe, you need to present solid, academic, secondary or tertiary sources which support your claims instead of engaging in original research over one line from a primary source. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Recent attempts to undo the longstanding consensus

One editor has been attempting to call into question the longstanding consensus view given in this article, mostly based on the tired misconception that the Malleus was an officially approved Inquisitorial manual, although historians have refuted that. There have been many discussions over these issues (and related issues) in the various articles dealing with inquisitorial courts, and there is no need to rehash all this stuff over and over again whenever one person comes in and repeats the same misconceptions. Even Neo-Pagan historians such as Jenny Gibbons accept that the Malleus was condemned by the 15th century Church and its author was viewed by the other clergy as a crackpot. This is the consensus among historians who are considered experts in this subfield. Ryn78 (talk) 13:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

See above discussion for a concerning example. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

This is OR. Lets work with sources from the article. I will have a look at discussions later.--Asterixf2 (talk) 01:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The article presents the consensus among historians, which is not "OR". It is you who have been making arguments based on your own ideas, similar to arguments that have been discussed ad nauseam before and do not need to be rehashed all over again. The article could certainly use better citations and I'll try to add more as time permits. Allow me time to do that, and then see what you think. Ryn78 (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. All I see in the article is a bunch of manipulations that do not follow from cited sources. My edits do not render article perfect but are a step in making it less tendentious. If there are opposing views, they can be both presented. You fail to apply policy, you cannot remove tags without justifying removals. In particular, you cannot revert obvious copyright violation (copy&paste from the book). It just shows that you have not carefully analyzed my edits and that you are just frivolously reverting and ignoring my work. This is a non-starter for discussion. And since you remove sure copyvio tag I am obliged to revert this change. How tagging sure copyvio violates consensus? This is just one example but all your changes are unjustified. I don't care about previous consensus if the statements in article do not follow from cited sources. OR in talk page is still OR. Furthermore, please do not remove properly cited statements. Last but not least, please note that I am correcting or tagging various statements, but I am not removing them. Please also note that I have not reverted change by Ian.thomson. I don't say you are surely wrong. I just comment on the current state of the article.
What I see all around the article is WP:ORIGINALSYN ;). In particular, adding four references at the end of a long paragraph is an unnecessary obfuscation. Please focus on stating facts and allow the reader to fill gaps where there are no sources. Feel welcome to add sources and modify article but building upon my work and responding to my objections in tags would be preferred. --Asterixf2 (talk) 09:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

What is it all about? The events seem to be the following:

1. Kramer tried to prosecute but failed due to jurisdictional dispute (according to the later papal bull(!))
   • You claim that the main reason was because he was senile old man and you insisting on quoting this phrase in an article - let's be more serious here...
2. Following that, he received papal bull that clarified and extended his authorization so that this obstacle was removed. The papal bull also gave him full authority to preach about the witchcraft (see the pull quote in this revision: starting with And they shall also have full and entire liberty)
3. Within two years AFTER he had received papal bull, he finished the Malleus Maleficarum, a year later it was published
4. Preface to the book contained (A) papal bull (B) unanimous approbation from the University of Cologne's Faculty of Theology
5. The book was never included in Index Librorum Prohibitorum and some users added such purely imaginative statements before to the article. There are difficulties in providing any source for this claim.
6. The book was HUGELY popular, it's true that Spanish Inquisition had objections to it, but (1) your edits suggesting that it was rejected are false, because Spanish Inquisition only warned not to trust fully and it was not a recommendation not to use this manual. (2) It was only Spanish Inquisition and writing about Inquisition in general is inappropriate. What's more source does not clearly say to which details that objection applied and therefore makes it possible to abuse this statement. (3) you are simply insisting on distortion of various sources.

To see how some users want to portrait above please read the article before my edits. Tendentiousness is alarming. I do not reject this opposing perspective. It's simply not justified currently with the sources and definitely all such interpretations must be attributed to their authors. In short, opposition tries to build the case on the following propositions (apart from other statements that are designed to induce bias in the reader even if not false):

• he was some senile old man that was expelled and wanted revenge and also mentally ill (yes, there were such claims) update: he was also a sexual deviant, look below for 'obsession'
• all documents are forgeries (papal bull, unanimous approbation)
• it was the secular courts that used it (church has nothing to do with it!)
• it was banned by everybody, everywhere and at the same time used by everybody, everywhere for centuries and never enlisted as banned book on churches' index (index was abolished in 1966 so there was a plenty of time...).--Asterixf2 (talk) 10:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• There is no reasonable doubt that those opposing the manual could be treated as heretics and could easily face death at the time. Opposition tries to turn it upside down. --Asterixf2 (talk) 11:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I've added some better citations for some of the paragraphs that you had tagged or modified, and I can add more as time permits. But in this discussion so far, you've presented little except your personal interpretation of a few snippets in this article (which you're often taking out of context) rather than quotes from historians (you haven't cited even one historian yet who takes your view). Since these issues have been discussed so many times before, I'm just going to briefly summarize what historians have determined on some of these points you've raised and cite some sources for a number of them.

- Firstly, the Malleus contains material which is flatly at odds with the stated and well-documented official doctrine of the time and standard legal procedures for inquisitorial courts, in fact the third section of the Malleus bluntly advises violating the standard law (see for example: Wolfgang Behringer's article, "Malleus Maleficarum" p. 6). It also promotes a bizarre fixation on shaving the pubic hair of female suspects (!) and similar sexual preoccupations which have nothing in common with the standard inquisitorial rules set forth in actual approved manuals such as the "Directorium Inquisitorum" and the "Practica Officii Inquisitionis Heretice Pravitatis". For some of the actual manuals and the methods they describe, see Edward Peters' book "Inquisition", pp 60, 68, 109-110, 167, 182, 268, 278, etc.

- Secondly, your interpretation of the Papal bull and letter from the clergy at the University of Cologne is based entirely on what Kramer claims in the Malleus itself, which is soundly contradicted by the other 99.9% of the evidence from the period: there are documents proving that the clergy at Cologne actually condemned the book and directly refuted Kramer's claim that they had instead allegedly approved it -- e.g. Thomas de Scotia and Johann von Worde were listed in the Malleus as having supposedly "approved" it but they both denied that (see for example Behringer's article mentioned above, p. 3). The Papal bull does not give approval to Kramer's methods or his book; additionally, we only have Kramer's version of the bull, which may be a forgery just as the letter of approval from the University of Cologne is widely viewed by historians as a forgery, and similarly for the numerous other falsified information in the book (the abovementioned sources cover these points as well). The Malleus even claims that Kramer's investigation at Innsbruck was a success despite the patent fact that all the other evidence proves that his trial there was shut down, which brings me to the next point.

- Thirdly, Kramer's expulsion from Innsbruck was not due merely to a "jurisdictional dispute" as you claim in the material you added to the article: there are surviving letters from the Bishop who expelled him (George II Golser), and other documents explaining why he expelled Kramer from the city: Kramer ran afoul of the Bishop, the local Archduke, and the other members of his own tribunal for his excesses and his obsession with the sexual habits of a woman named Helena Scheuberin. The other tribunal members called a halt to the proceedings, Kramer himself was accused of illegal behavior by an attorney appointed by the Bishop's representatives, and the head of the tribunal finally suspended the trial and released the accused. The Bishop then ordered Kramer to stop causing trouble and leave the city, describing him as "senile and crazy" in the words of one historian. (See, for example, "Witch Hunts in Europe and America: An Encyclopedia" by William E. Burns, pp 143-144; and Behringer's "Malleus Maleficarum", p. 2). Kramer is believed by many historians to have written the Malleus in order to come up with rules that would bypass the normal laws which had led his trial at Innsbruck to be suspended, and to try to justify his sexual obsessions, which is why the book has numerous chapters on topics such as the harmful things witches can allegedly do to penises (one of Kramer's big themes); the claim that after penises were stolen by witches, people sometimes found 20 or 30 penises crawling around and being fed on grain (!); and the idea that female suspects should be stripped naked so Kramer can shave their private parts (see: "Witch Hunts in Europe and America..." p. 160, among others). This stuff only further convinced the other clergy that Kramer was nuts, as well as his blunt claims that the law didn't apply to him; hence the aforementioned condemnation of the book by the theologians at Cologne.

- Fourthly, many of the tags you've added are improper - for example, one tag claims a sentence about the "Canon Episcopi" is dubious based solely on your personal interpretation of a single quote from Aquinas. Granted, the sentence you're disputing is badly phrased (other Misplaced Pages articles present the issue in a more nuanced fashion) but the point it's trying to make is essentially valid: many of the medieval Church's documents do in fact describe witchcraft merely as a pagan superstition or illusion, and certainly present a less extreme and obsessive viewpoint than Kramer's stuff in the Malleus.

- Fifthly, you claimed that the Malleus was accepted by the Church (and that *opposing* it was allegedly an act of heresy), based on nothing but your unsourced claim that it wasn't placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, which you then construed as an official endorsement, which is a classic case of using an unsourced claim to back up a non sequitur which is contradicted by the evidence I just summarized above. I assume you think it wasn't on the Index just because someone in a previous discussion on this same talk page claimed he/she couldn't find it, while another person said they DID find it in one copy of the Index. So these two guys contradict each other, neither of them are historians, and it makes very little difference either way because there were numerous books that weren't placed on the Index but which were still condemned by the Church nonetheless -- there were a total of only a few thousand placed on the Index by the time it was finally discontinued in 1966, but there were hundreds of thousands of books containing things the Church didn't approve of, such as dirty sex novels, atheist tracts, etc, etc. Lack of inclusion in the Index does not mean the Church approved: the only books given official approval were the ones which were given the "Imprimatur", which the Malleus never had. The bottom line is that, as noted farther above, it was in fact condemned shortly after publication. When you claim it was "popular", you mean it was used by Royal courts later in the 16th and 17th centuries; it wasn't used by inquisitorial courts nor does it resemble approved manuals. As I said, look at the actual approved manuals such as the "Directorium Inquisitorum" to see what actual inquisitorial guidelines were like.

- Sixthly: your claim that the Spanish Inquisition merely cautioned against a 'total reliance', rather than condemning the book, is based entirely on your attempt to interpret a paraphrase while ignoring more specific quotes from historians on the matter: e.g., Wolfgang Behringer wrote that the Spanish Inquisition "denied any authority to the Malleus" (see Behringer's article "Malleus Maleficarum", p. 7). The Spanish Inquisition used the "Directorium Inquisitorum" and its offshoots such as the "Repertorium Inquisitorum", not the Malleus (See Edward Peter's book "Inquisition" p. 60, for example).

- Additionally: your claim of a "copyright violation" for one sentence is not backed by any proof, and a search for that sentence only finds webpages which have copied this Misplaced Pages article itself verbatim. So it seems to be these other webpages which have copied this article, not the other way around.

- In any event, Misplaced Pages articles need to be based on the views of experts who have studied a subject in depth, not your personal interpretation of a handful of phrases you've pulled from this article and then reinterpreted as you wish. Unless you can present quotes from historians who have studied the subject thoroughly, you need to cease and desist because Misplaced Pages talk pages are not designed for presenting your personal ideas, but rather for presenting reputable sources that we can use in the article. Worse, there have already been plenty of other discussions on these same issues in which people have brought out many of the same claims that you're making, which have been refuted over and over. Enough is enough. Ryn78 (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Once again, you disrespectfully reverted all my changes. I have not included any personal interpretation or opinion in the article and everything was properly sourced. I have added a bunch of tags where they were justified. As I have explained to you previously, my concern was with the article and based on the sources in the article. You are insisting on taking into account your personal opinion or some other OR in talk pages. Even new translator (there are 2 or 3 of them) of Malleus debunks theories that those documents were forgeries. Also, I have not claimed that Malleus was accepted by church. Obviously, there were authorizations from pope for Kramer and later tolerance of the book. There were no "multiple major rejections" as one would expect. On the contrary, it was wildly popular, published many times and with multiple editions. However, this is not crucial here, I based my edits on the cited sources not my interpretation. Sexual aspect is not specific to Kramer, but an element of christian doctrine. Just look at the example of Aquinas, one section above. As far as copyvio is concerned, I have explicitly told you that it's a COPY&PASTE FROM THE BOOK and it's evident you have failed to verify.

I consider your approach WP:DISRUPTIVE, you deny to be constructive, and what you do here is, as I see it, obvious propaganda and gross violation of WP:OWN. --Asterixf2 (talk) 09:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

editor has restored some of my statements, I partially withdraw my position above --Asterixf2 (talk) 10:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

PS: I assume you think it wasn't on the Index just because someone in a previous discussion on this same talk page claimed he/she couldn't find it, while another person said they DID find it in one copy of the Index. This is grotesque. I have not found such statement. Furthermore, if it was on index and later was not then it would mean that it was removed from the index (unbanned). Please stop being so tendentious. --Asterixf2 (talk) 11:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Changes, comparison

Ryn78, Thank you for restoring some of my changes. I have just noticed that. This is more constructive and gives some hope. However you left in the article the following changes that you've made:

1. Halsall, Paul. "Innocent VIII: BULL Summis desiderantes, Dec. 5th, 1484", Medieval Sourcebook, Fordham University
2. Burns, William. "Witch Hunts in Europe and America: An Encyclopedia", pp. 143-144.
3. Jolly, Raudvere, & Peters(eds.), "Witchcraft and magic in Europe: the Middle Ages", page 241 (2002)
4. "The latter was at least partly a forgery, because two of its supposed authors (Thomas de Scotia and Johann von Wörde) later denied any participation." - Behringer, Wolfgang. "Malleus Maleficarum" p. 3.
5. Jolly, Raudvere, & Peters(eds.), "Witchcraft and magic in Europe: the Middle Ages", page 241 (2002)

Alleged Forgeries

Clarification: There are two views: (1) unanimous approbation was only partially a forgery (2) there was no forgery of approbation at all. Article cannot claim or suggest that (1) is true but should be balanced and present both views. BTW: I strongly oppose to any suggestions that papal bull is not authentic (this is a different document). --Asterixf2 (talk) 12:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC) For example, author of a new and professional translation, said in an interview:

I'm going to reply to your three responses (spread out over several sections you added) in one concise response to make this more manageable, and I'm going to ask you to please stop creating entirely new sections one after another for the same discussion, because that's not the normal way to do it and it's a horrendously bad way to conduct a discussion.

- In my last note here I presented seven citations from historians, whereas you presented only one in your current note and none at all in your previous note; and yet you have the gall to claim that I'm the one allegedly presenting unsourced personal opinions and you're allegedly presenting sourced citations from historians? Are you deliberately being dishonest, or aren't you bothering to read anything I've written? You then proceeded to "analyze" my sourced additions to the article (in which I quoted or summarized historians) by giving your own personal opinions on why you think these historians are wrong, without citing any historians who refute the ones I cited. For example, you responded to my citation of William Burns' book "Witch Hunts in Europe and America" by claiming I'm giving a "speculative interpretation" and alleging I didn't present any source for Kramer's expulsion, despite the patent fact that: 1) I gave a summary of Burns' analysis of the many documents which give precise details about Kramer's expulsion and a point-by-point accounting of the trial at Innsbruck and the reasons that trial was shut down as given in the official documents written by the people who shut it down and expelled Kramer from the city. This isn't my own "speculation": it's Burns' description of what the evidence says. If you want to refute Burns' description, you would need to cite a different historian who disagrees with Burns' assessment. You haven't done that.

- Likewise for your analysis of my citation from Wolfgang Behringer's article: I summarized Behringer's description of the evidence, but you tried to dismiss his description by speculating that Thomas de Scotia and Johann von Worde *might* have been lying (based on what? Your opinion?) and you accused me of violating the rule against synthesis although I accurately summarized Behringer's statements rather than presenting my own synthesis. It's not up to you to decide whether Behringer was correct or not since you're not a historian. Again, you would need to cite a quote from an actual historian who takes a different view than the ones I've been citing.

- Concerning your claim that Kramer's bizarre sexual preoccupations are consistent with Aquinas' writings: show me any quote from Aquinas which resembles Kramer's description of severed penises congregating and crawling around on the ground feeding on grain, as Kramer describes in the Malleus.

- Regarding the alleged copyright issue: Can you prove it's a direct quote from the book - have you even read that book? Again, cite your evidence rather than just making claims.

- As for your quote from Christopher Mackey claiming that there is no evidence that the approval from the University of Cologne is a forgery and that Sprenger supposedly actually co-authored the Malleus as the later editions of the book claim: Christopher Mackey is a linguist specializing in ancient languages, not a historian of the late 15th and 16th centuries; his quote claims only a 19th century author believed that these documents were forged, glossing over the many modern historians who also believe that; and the quote from Mackey presented no evidence for rejecting the consensus among historians such as Hans-Christian Klose, Wolfgang Behringer, Jenny Gibbons, and many others who have pointed out that there is overwhelming evidence to prove that both of these were forgeries. For example, these historians have pointed out that: 1) Sprenger's name was only added as an author of the Malleus in 1519, fully 33 years after its first publication and likewise decades after Sprenger's own death, which wouldn't make any sense unless this late addition of his name was a forgery added to later versions of the book (see Behringer's "Malleus Maleficarum" p. 2 and other sources); 2) A close friend of Sprenger explicitly refuted this posthumous addition by pointing out that Sprenger had nothing to do with the book (see Hans-Christian Klose's “Die angebliche Mitarbeit des Dominikaners Jakob Sprenger am Hexenhammer...” pp. 197–205 in Paderbornensis Ecclesia); 3) Sprenger couldn't have been a colleague of Kramer since Sprenger spent much of his life opposing Kramer, even going so far as to get him banned from Dominican convents and banned from preaching (see Behringer's "Malleus Maleficarum" p. 3 and other sources); 4) Sprenger's stated views in his own writings were often the diametric opposite of the ideas in the Malleus (see Behringer's "Malleus Maleficarum" p. 3 and other sources). For all these reasons, many historians believe that Sprenger couldn't have co-authored the book, and certainly couldn't have suddenly become a co-author only decades after his own death. If you want to take issue with this view and claim it's "fringe", then you need to cite a sufficient number of historians who have an alternate explanation for why Sprenger was only listed as an author long after his death but not during the first three decades of the book's existence (cite historians, don't just make up an explanation of your own), and the list of these historians needs to be large enough in number to make the case that they are in the majority. Mackey is just one linguist, and the quote from him doesn't even give any reasons to back up his claim nor any alternate explanation for Sprenger's late addition.

- Likewise, I already cited a historian who gave the evidence for the consensus view that the Cologne "endorsement" must have been a forgery: there are documents proving that the University faculty as a whole certainly condemned it rather than endorsing it, and at least two of the alleged endorsers denied that they had endorsed it (see Behringer's "Malleus Maleficarum" p. 3 and other sources). The only excuse you've given for rejecting that view is your claim that they could have been lying, which is just speculation on your part without any citation from a historian; and you haven't even addressed the issue of the clear condemnation by the faculty as a whole.

- In one of your comments you claimed you just want to present both sides of the issue, and yet your own additions to the article do not present both sides, nor even the dominant side. In any event, it's common practice in Misplaced Pages articles to give greater weight to the dominant consensus among recognized experts, which in this case would be historians such as the ones I've been citing.

- In some of your latest edits to the article, you repeatedly quoted a book by Sigrid Brauner, who was a literature teacher, not a historian. Should we add citations from literature teachers to articles on physics or biology too? Find a historian who has studied this topic thoroughly.

- In any event, this has gone on long enough. In this discussion, you've presented only one vague quote from an author (Mackay) as the only excuse to reject the many historians I've cited. There is no need for me to keep tediously presenting more citations only to have you reject them in turn based on nothing but your own opinions, followed by ironic accusations that I'm allegedly doing the same. Enough is enough. Ryn78 (talk) 01:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your response but I don't consider it fully relevant. You fail to understand that your explanations here do not matter to me as much as the article's content. What I was arguing is that citations in the article are constantly being manipulated and distorted. WP:ORIGINALSYN does not follow from the quotes. PS. Malleus Maleficarum is German literature and Brauner was an expert on German literature. Most of the professors are teachers. --Asterixf2 (talk) 12:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Both of you calm your tits

I'm not even going to begin to address everything point-by-point, but just some general trends.

@Asterixf2: I'm seeing you citing a lot of WP:PRIMARY sources, which is usually a sign of original research. Your addition on the summis desiderantes is nothing but original research. You are not listed at WP:RS, so your interpretation of that document is not acceptable here. Your citation of Brauner, if it checks out, is more like the sort of stuff you should be doing. When someone presents you with reliable sources (i.e. professional secondary/tertiary sources) to counter either your own arguments, your interpretation of primary sources, or your requests for sources -- you need to accept those reliable sources instead of countering with nuh-uh (which is what your response in the Aquinas thread amounts to). As for your statement that "Article cannot claim or suggest that (1) is true but should be balanced and present both views" -- see WP:GEVAL. If the only sources presented say 1 is true, we do not say "1 or 2." Until you cite some professional academic sources that explicitly support the claim the university endorsement was anything but a forgery, that's all the article can refer to it as.

• @Ian.thomson: If you are blind to WP:ORIGINALSYN by Ryn78 and tendentiousness in the article I don't have much hope. "If the only sources presented say 1 is true" ? This is not the case. On the contrary. "sources, which is usually a sign of" - I strongly oppose to this. We have a precise case and your general discussion is unnecessary. Primary sources are best sources about themselves, see also WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. --Asterixf2 (talk) 13:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ryn78: While Asterixf2 has pointed out that some material that legitimately needed work, even if he also pointed out a lot of stuff that didn't need work. His citation of Brauner also appropriate. He is not being a troll, both of you are just being bull-headed.

Between the two of you, the article seems to have actually improved. I see a lot of stuff on this talk page that is useless (like arguing over whether or not it was or was not in the Index Librum Prohibitorum). Both of you need to go read WP:AGF, WP:OWN, and WP:NPA. Don't just look at that last sentence and think I'm talking about the other person, both of you need to evaluate your own behavior. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

My scepticism arises from the multiple distortions of sources (originalsyn) and overall tendentiousness. for example, Ryn78's removal of my tag "request quote" accompanied by alteration and obfuscation of the sentence is clearly wp:disruptive. The sentence (permalink: , sentence "Kramer would falsely claim that several of them had approved it, which they denied" + quotes to citations - clear manipulation) If it was or not in the index is very important. However, because it was not, I am certain some people may want to downplay this. --Asterixf2 (talk) 13:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

It has improved. 99% of new content was added by me, and it would have improved even more if ryn78 had not insisted on tendentious nonsense. --Asterixf2 (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Ian Thomson: Regarding your view that Brauner is a relevant expert from the correct field: Studying medieval German literature is not the same as studying the things that historians deal with - the societal, legal, theological, etc context which allows a proper interpretation of the literature. There's no indication that Brauner has exhaustively studied inquisitorial tribunals, medieval law, theology, the specific people involved with the Malleus or most of the other issues that would be relevant. I've been citing historians who presented very detailed descriptions of events we've been discussing such as Kramer's Innsbruck trial - historians who give precise dates for each phase of the trial, descriptions of the letters written by the local bishop, names of the attorneys involved, etc - and historians who have studied the standard manuals like the Directorium Inquisitorum which place the aberrational books like the Malleus in proper context. It's that type of exhaustive in-depth historical research which is the mark of an expert in this field, and I don't see anything similar from Brauner on this specific topic (e.g., how many inquisitorial manuals has she read in order to give her the proper perspective on the Malleus' bizarre deviations from the standard manuals? How many trial transcripts has she read in order to give her perspective on why Kramer's trial at Innsbruck was shut down by the local clergy and Kramer was banned from preaching or even entering Dominican monasteries? Does she even realize that Kramer was banned rather than being the "celebrated inquisitor" of his own fantasy?) Saying that she studies medieval literature and is therefore an expert on the Malleus is a bit like saying that someone who studies science fiction novels is an expert on physics. In some cases that may be true, but in the general case it certainly isn't. Ryn78 (talk) 04:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Asterix: You claimed I had "manipulated" the following sentence: "Kramer would falsely claim that several of them had approved it, which they denied". That is in fact what the sources say, in fact it's a common view among mainstream historians. What exactly am I "manipulating" here? If you really want to accuse me of wrongdoing, then you need to back it up with proof, which you haven't done.

As for your comments about Brauner, see my response to Ian Thomson above. Ryn78 (talk) 04:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Ryn78 your recent reverts are absurd (properly sourced: , properly sourced, including britannica; - again britannica; - tendentious, - unjustified removal. Please see WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:FRINGE and WP:OWN. --Asterixf2 (talk) 10:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Request for proper sourcing of Behringer, Wolfgang. "Malleus Maleficarum"

Asterix: You removed every single addition I made while making up absurd excuses for doing so. You removed the citation for "Witchcraft and Magic in Europe" by saying you can't find an author named "Joyy", but that's because "Joyy" is a typo for "Jolly" (Karen Jolly is her full name) and yes it is in fact a real book, as you can see at : http://www.abebooks.com/book-search/isbn/0485891034/used/

There is no excuse for removing it just because there was a typo in the citation, as there often is in Misplaced Pages articles. The normal procedure is to fix the typo rather than deleting the entire passage, which is really a form of vandalism.

@Ryn78: In my opinion, your super-tiny additions have not improved the article. Besides, they are mostly reverts of tendentious content I have removed or further manipulations. You have not provided a diff. If you do we may discuss. I purposefully have made those changes in separate edits. This typo was making the citation difficult to verify and I guess it wasn't my only premise for deletion. --Asterixf2 (talk) 08:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

You removed the material from "Witch Hunts in Europe and America: An Encyclopedia" with only the vague excuse that it was "tendentious", a term you constantly use for anything you don't like. Why is it "tendentious", and why shouldn't it be included? Give a reason, don't just throw out the word "tendentious" all the time.

@Ryn78: You have not provided a diff. If you do we may discuss. I purposefully have made those changes in separate edits. --Asterixf2 (talk) 08:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The rationale you gave for removing the Behringer source was: "Author seems to be realiable but this source/citation is unreliable" which is absurd. Wolfgang Behringer is a professional HISTORIAN at Saarland University who specializes in witchcraft issues and has written many peer-reviewed academic works, and as far as I know the article I cited was peer-reviewed since that's part of the requirement for an academic scholar like Behringer. You haven't given any reason for believing otherwise (can you actually prove it wasn't peer-reviewed?) and even if it wasn't, Misplaced Pages's rules state that a recognized expert's self-published work is an acceptable RS ("Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert"), which means it wouldn't need to be peer-reviewed to be acceptable in Behringer's case. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Exceptions

@Ryn78: Please answer my questions asked at the beginning even if it was self-published. --Asterixf2 (talk) 08:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

You then proceeded to purge the article of virtually every view aside from your own, deleting even the briefest reference to the mainstream view that Sprenger couldn't possibly have written the book, which is in gross violation of the NPOV principle. You're clearly just trying to find any excuse you can think of to remove literally everything that doesn't suit your agenda, while claiming that I can't remove even a small percentage of the stuff you added - which brings me to the next point:

@Ryn78: It is not mainstream, but your personal opinion and in my view pov pushing of a fringe theory. --Asterixf2 (talk) 08:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the notice you posted on my talk page warning me to never remove anything from this article even though I gave valid reasons: you've removed plenty of stuff from this article WITHOUT any valid reason whatsoever, so where do you get off telling me I can never remove anything for any reason? I gave the reasons in my edit summaries, which you still haven't addressed (why were my reasons invalid? You didn't say).

@Ryn78: You are constantly bringing back obviously tendentious material. I may decide not to discuss it with you again in such cases. You don't refer to changes individually and precisely with diffs. --Asterixf2 (talk) 08:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

My reasons were as follows: that material makes claims which have been refuted by so many historians. Ignoring that common view is a violation of the NPOV principle. There are also at least two problems with adding so many quotes from Mackey and Brauner : firstly, even if they are proper sources despite the fact that neither of them are historians, it still would not be proper to give them a more privileged position over actual historians who have done in-depth, specialized research on the relevant subjects. Right now, the quotes or paraphrases of Mackey and Brauner's material is several magnitudes larger than the combined amount of material from all of the actual historians that were cited in the article (even before you deleted all of them), which is absurdly unbalanced. Secondly: Mackey is a linguist who specializes mainly in ancient Greek and Latin while only dabbling occasionally in subjects that would be relevant to this article; and Brauner was a literature professor who only dabbled occasionally in subjects that would be relevant to this article. Since when are dabblers considered experts? I occasionally do a bit of dabbling in quantum physics, but I can't be cited as an "expert" in that field and I certainly wouldn't trump the scientists who actually conduct primary research using particle accelerators. So why the dickens are Mackey and Brauner qualified as experts in a field other than their own, and why should they be quoted far more extensively than actual historians who specialize in the relevant subjects? Worse, the quotes from them indicate that they just accept the Malleus' version of things at face value because they haven't read the many documents which contradict it. That's exactly why dabblers should be avoided: they've only studied a smattering of the evidence. I've raised some of these points in previous notes but you continue to ignore those points. You haven't given any reason to justify using these two authors at all, much less using them relentlessly and including long quotes from them as if they're the foremost authorities on the subject.

You have also tried to ram your preferred version into the article by adding so much new material each day, almost continuously all day long with only periodic breaks, that it has become impossible to even wade through it all, much less properly vette and discuss it. This practice of trying to dominate an article by sitting online all day is really an abuse of the system, because: 1) it takes advantage of the fact that some of us have jobs or other responsibilities in "real life" and therefore cannot compete with your constant editing. Misplaced Pages articles are not supposed to be dominated by whomever can sit online the longest. 2) This tactic also takes advantage of the fact that Misplaced Pages doesn't have a normal, regulated review process to enforce a reasonable pace for vetting. Without that type of regulation, anyone can bulldoze their material into an article just by deluging their opponent with too much material to wade through. That's not how the system is supposed to work, so I'm going to ask you to scale down your frenetic pace. I think maybe ten edits a day should be sufficient. If you keep trying to ram your stuff through by sitting online all day, I'm going to ask an admin to lock the article until we can actually discuss these enormous new changes. A few changes do not require consensus, but a complete overhaul of the article certainly does. Ryn78 (talk) 05:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ryn78: The problem is that you are trying to discuss tendentious and manipulative content and try to legitimize it by this discussion. I am not going to constantly refute the same nonsense. As far as Brauner is concerned, qualifications have been already explained to you. Regarding Mackay, he is the author of the only available fully professional translation to english of malleus and a Professor in the Department of History and Classics at the University. --Asterixf2 (talk) 08:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Asterix: You completely dodged my questions about your unwarranted removals of sourced material, only responding that you had "reasons" and telling to me "provide a diff", which is absurd. You know perfectly well which changes I'm referring to because I already mentioned the names of the sources which you deleted, and I gave details. But here are the diffs anyway, although you're just going to ignore that too:

Here's where you removed text from Behringer : https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Malleus_Maleficarum&type=revision&diff=745870730&oldid=745867349

Another removal of text from Behringer: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Malleus_Maleficarum&type=revision&diff=745871456&oldid=745870730

Yet another removal of text from Behringer: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Malleus_Maleficarum&type=revision&diff=745871932&oldid=745871456

Here's where you removed text from a respected book just because the citation had a minor typo ("Joyy et al" instead of "Jolly et al"): https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Malleus_Maleficarum&type=revision&diff=745876342&oldid=745872206

If you can't provide any legitimate rationale for your removal of virtually all of the historians who take a view that you personally disagree with, then you've proved you're guilty of POV-pushing and vandalism. You even removed a whole chunk of text from a prominent book written by several respected historians, for no other reason than the citation contained a typo, which I fixed but then you deleted it again. That's as bad as it gets.

You threatened to stop discussing these issues, but the fact is you've never discussed most of them in the first place. You've failed to respond to most of my points over the last couple days while dodging others by giving flippant excuses.

You likewise claimed that the views of all these historians are "fringe" views, which is nonsense. Behringer, Peters, Burns, etc are respected mainstream historians, whereas the people you've been citing are almost entirely NON-historians from other fields who merely dabbled a little bit in this subject, except for Broedel; but a review of Broedel's book by Michael Bailey (in the academic journal "Magic, Ritual, and Witchcraft") pointed out that Broedel's arguments run counter to the common view taken by historians rather than the other way around, and Bailey also pointed out that "much evidence points to Kramer as the sole author". Likewise on the issue of the alleged acceptance of the Malleus by the Church, which has been exhaustively proven false by numerous historians, including the Neo-Pagan Jenny Gibbons, such as in her article "Recent Developments in the Study of The Great European Witch Hunt" in the academic journal: "International Journal of Pagan Studies, issue number 5, August 1998; pp 2 - 16". She explains how the Malleus was mistaken as an accepted inquisitorial manual despite its rejection by the 15th century Church: 'in the 1970s, when feminist and Neo-Pagan authors turned their attention to the witch trials, the Malleus Maleficarum (Hammer of Witches) was the only manual readily available in translation. Authors naively assumed that the book painted an accurate picture of how the Inquisition tried witches. Heinrich Kramer, the text's demented author, was held up as a typical inquisitor. His rather stunning sexual preoccupations were presented as the Church's "official" position on witchcraft. Actually the Inquisition immediately rejected the legal procedures Kramer recommended and censured the inquisitor himself just a few years after the Malleus was published. Secular courts, not inquisitorial ones, resorted to the Malleus'. There are many other examples of historians giving this view, which is in fact mainstream. If anyone is citing "fringe authors" here, it is YOU.

You also have presented misleading claims about Mackay's credentials. His own faculty page describes him as a linguist, not a historian (as you imply) who focuses mainly on ancient Greek and Latin. Worse, your version of the article contains quote after quote from Mackay without any rebuttals from the opposing view since you deleted all of those. Still worse, the quotes from Mackey do not even address the actual issues because they instead focus mainly on attacking one 19th century author while failing to address the arguments made by modern historians and also failing to present any evidence to contradict the large amounts of evidence presented by historians on this point. Mackay just states an opinion without proof. That's precisely why we're supposed to cite experts rather than someone who merely has dabbled a little bit in the subject: an expert can give thorough evidence, the dabbler cannot. This is common sense as well as basic Misplaced Pages policy. You're violating that policy on so many counts.

The bottom line is that you're vandalizing this article by getting rid of any semblance of balance. I've added a more balanced version while keeping most of your additions. If you want to delete all these views by historians yet again, you need to discuss it first, not just vandalize. Ryn78 (talk) 04:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Asterix: You again reverted all my changes without discussion or explanation, merely adding an edit note saying that you had read my comments on the talk page but without responding to any of my points, much less working out an agreement through consensus. You don't own this article. You've also once again purged the article of virtually every last opposing view, which is a gross violation of the NPOV principle.

You additionally keep adding discredited claims from Montague Summers, a deacon who claimed to be a priest but certainly was not a historian, in fact he largely wrote books defending his stated belief in vampires and werewolves, such as the books "The Vampire: His Kith and Kin" (1928), "The Vampire in Europe" (1929), and "The Werewolf" (1933). Not exactly a mainstream author much less a mainstream historian. His goal in writing his book on the Malleus in 1928 seems to have been to promote his favorite 15th century book (which he openly supported, including the hideous tortures described therein) by claiming (falsely) that it was supposedly approved by a wide variety of authorities. Then he went on to write books about his belief in vampires and werewolves. He's the definition of a fringe author, analogous to citing a Youtube user who makes videos called "Zombies Caught On Camera!" or "Obama Is A Reptilian!" and peddling him off as a mainstream scholar.

He is a valuable resource and is quoted by all historians. BTW. Isaac Newton was an alchemist. --Asterixf2 (talk) 09:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Enough of this nonsense. Misplaced Pages's rules REQUIRE us to use mainstream experts in the relevant field, which in this case is late medieval / early Renaissance HISTORY, preferably professional historians who have done in-depth research on a wide variety of relevant documents rather than just reading the Malleus itself and either accepting its claims at face value or actively promoting its claims due to a personal agenda. I've cited plenty of respected historians but you have deleted every single one. Ryn78 (talk) 01:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I consider error in the authors name 'joyy' instead of 'jolly' that occurred in multiple places in the article as obfuscation. It made verification less straightforward and furthermore, for example, the quote about spanish inquisition was put out of context and not only that, based on that it was significantly distorted and obfuscated by mixing with 2 others sources. Jolly simply discusses on this page the discourse that was stirred by malleus maleficarum and for such a popular book it's no surprise that there were some critics, especially that even Kramer and Sprenger explain that they write a book because of the criticism of their approach. However, in the same page Jolly gives the mention by Spanish inquisition due weight by writing "The cautionary advice of Spanish Inquisition in 1538 was merely another instance of the kinds of interest, and objections, that the malleus raised." Not to mention that aged malleus at that time was being replaced by newer publications that were based on malleus and of course discussed various claims. Malleus was becoming more like Old Testament and some claims were tolerated but ignored (Summers gives ethymology of femina as an example) while others like the dangers of witchcraft were upheld. Furthermore, regarding some quotes, singling out Italy without proper discussion and context gives a wrong overall impression. PS. You are misleading I have not deleted all instances of Jolly and now I have even added a proper bibliography entry for the book. --Asterixf2 (talk) 10:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

On Bias

This page is heavily biased, and should be edited by a neutral party or otherwise revised. The content of this article is thusly encyclopediac and therefore against the Manual of Style. For example, this page uses the word "misogyny" or a variation thereof at least four times to describe the article's content, even openly declaring the book to be misogynistic in the summary! In addition, the source material cited in this article is also heavily biased. Please address this and/or harass me over this. --Vami IV (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC) Deus Vult!

...A work that claims that women are inherently weaker and are more likely to succumb to Satan's temptations and so must be monitored and persecuted is somehow not misogynistic? That's like saying that the article on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is biased for calling it antisemitic. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Of course there are areas that need to be expanded or modified, but your concern with the use of 'misogyny' isn't well founded. However, I do recognize the need to provide more sources for the use of this word in the lead section. ps. according to google misogyny refers to "dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women." --Asterixf2 (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Would you mind if I put in some edits to try and balance out this page when you deem it ready? If possible, I would like to resolve any issues I or other editors have with the page. I have seen examples on this very talk page of at least one disgruntled editor correcting a biased mistake you made. --Vami IV (talk) 03:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC) Deus Vult!

1. Newton's fundamental contributions to science include the quantification of gravitational attraction, the discovery that white light is actually a mixture of immutable spectral colors, and the formulation of the calculus. Yet there is another, more mysterious side to Newton that is imperfectly known, a realm of activity that spanned some thirty years of his life, although he kept it largely hidden from his contemporaries and colleagues. We refer to Newton's involvement in the discipline of alchemy, or as it was often called in seventeenth-century England, "chymistry." - "The Chymistry of Isaac Newton". Indiana University, Bloomington. Retrieved 25 April 2016.

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Christianity articles
• Low-importance Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• B-Class Occult articles
• Mid-importance Occult articles
• WikiProject Occult articles
• B-Class Women's History articles
• High-importance Women's History articles
• All WikiProject Women-related pages
• WikiProject Women's History articles
• B-Class Feminism articles
• High-importance Feminism articles
• WikiProject Feminism articles
• Unassessed Book articles
• WikiProject Books articles