![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is the subject of a request emailed to the
Volunteer Response Team (VRT). Issues identified are: regarding
WP:BLPNAME of a related person |
Archive:
With all the scholarly material supposedly in this article, why are over 20 refs pointing to an audio tape made by a true believer that is not available to the general public? Surely we can do better, can we not?-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
This discussion page is full of comments that are years old. And just recently there are responses to comments that are a few years old. Unless there is an objection, I intend to archive most or all of what's on the page currently. MasterPainter ( talk) 05:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
According to the article, "He [M. Scott Peck] later fell out with Martin." This is sourced via footnote [21], which leads here: http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2005b/042905/042905m.htm. Nothing in that link, however, suggests that Peck had a falling out with Martin; rather, the article (a book review of Peck's "Glimpses of the Devil") is critical of Peck for relying on Martin too heavily as a source. I'm not comfortable changing the primary article since it is possible that the link has changed, but in the absence of support, someone may want to change the citation or, at minimum, take it with some salt. Smontg2 ( talk) 09:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
This is a long (and rather tedious) article about someone who doesn't seem to be particularly notable. Can we chop it back a bit and make it a bit more user friendly. What is Martin actually notable for? Writing a couple of books? Anything else? Contaldo80 ( talk) 09:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
References
I have restored a line in the lead that said Martin promoted unsubstantiated claims and conspiracy theories involving the Catholic Church. Among other things Martin claimed in his written works that:
If anyone can provide evidence that these four claims have indeed been substantiated then I agree we can reword the lead to reflect. Thanks. Contaldo80 ( talk) 12:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I am removing the following;
"Deeply conservative and a controversial commentator on the Vatican,[1] he promoted many unsubstantiated claims and conspiracy theories involving the Church."
This is an opinion and is does not convey the Wikipedia spirit of neutrality and is a mere opinion. ( PHILO617 ( talk) 13:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC))
What "facts to hand"? Calling his claims unsubstantiated is not true. Most of his claims were proven true like the pedophile scandal. I will continue to change the lead sentence and you can call in third party Wikipedia editors to help decide. You are bias against Martin. ( PHILO617 ( talk) 13:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC))
I am currently seeking Wiki dispute resolution to help decide this matter and will continue to edit the article and have added that Martins views were contested. I am working on getting a third party in the Wikipedia community to help with this dispute. ( PHILO617 ( talk) 13:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC))
Hi, I filed a dispute resolution appeal at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Malachi_Martin%20Article ( PHILO617 ( talk) 13:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC))
Would a compromise be acceptable on the lead article: A controversial figure, Martin was a harsh critic of the Vatican whose opinions were often contested and considered unsubstantiated." ( PHILO617 ( talk) 14:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC))
Also Martin is not considered all that conservative as he believed that people could find salvation outside the Church of Rome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PHILO617 ( talk • contribs) 14:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Some of his views were theological opinions and cannot be proven like the Anti Christ is alive. I feel the word considered is more accurate. Here is some links proving Martin was a theological liberal: http://www.revisionisthistory.org/wire3.html ( PHILO617 ( talk) 16:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC))
The term "conspiracy theorist" is an unfair and demeaning term and should not be used. Its a Point of View you hold as opposed to a fact. I consider his work to be solid and many of his assertions proved true. For example in The Final Conclave (1978) he claimed the Vatican was involved ion shady banking deals with Freemasons and organized crime This was confirmed in the book In God's Name (1983) by David Yallop. I am enjoying this dialogue and wish you no ill will on a personal level I hope you know. I will continue to undo things that are POV's as opposed to facts and you may challenge them and/or seek a neutral third party Wikipedia editor.( PHILO617 ( talk) 18:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC))
Popes John XXIII and Paul VI were freemasons; source article: http://rense.com/general73/ppe.htm Agostino Casaroli, long-time Cardinal Secretary of State, was an atheist. Based on Martin's work at the Vatican under Cardinal Bea. A diplomatic agreement existed between the Vatican and the U.S.S.R. called the Metz Accord. Source article: http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a007ht.htm (with newspaper references) The antichrist was a literal historical figure, and was alive in 1996. A theological opinion. Much like the existence of God it cannot be proved or disproved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PHILO617 ( talk • contribs) 22:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid the term conspiracy theory is too harsh to use for these marginal themes in the whole of Malachi Martin's writing. I will continue to undue your posts and perhaps you should seek a third party editor. ( PHILO617 ( talk) 11:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC))
No I have addressed these issues please get a third party evaluation if you like. If not I will continue to undo. You are making bias statements against MM ( PHILO617 ( talk) 12:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC))
What sources support the claim that Martin "was a regular quest on such programs as Oprah Winfrey, Sean Hannity, CNN and Coast to Coast AM hosted by Art Bell."? Regular would have to mean more than a couple of times, and guest would need to be an interviewed guest (not in a segment). Contaldo80 ( talk) 15:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Please request a third party Wiki editor to arbitrate.( PHILO617 ( talk) 15:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC))
Martin on Ophrah : http://www.christianity.com/christian%20living/features/11622254/page5/
Martin on Hammity: http://satanicpanicnews.blogspot.com/2007_08_01_archive.html
Martin on C2C: http://www.coasttocoastam.com/search/?query=MALACHI+MARTIN — Preceding unsigned comment added by PHILO617 ( talk • contribs) 15:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
First off you are becoming disruptive making wild claims that Martin was obsessed with Satanism. He wrote a book on it. Plus your lead is too long you can address the issues below in the critical sections. I am contacting an administrator now. (
PHILO617 (
talk) 15:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC))
Hi, Working on getting mediation from the top. Obsession is too harsh a word for a lead. No hard feelings I hope you know.( PHILO617 ( talk) 16:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC))
filed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/MalachiMartin — Preceding unsigned comment added by PHILO617 ( talk • contribs) 17:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Hostage to the Devil is about demonic possession not satanism.
Calling MM obsessed is merely an opinion and an insult no matter where it appeared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PHILO617 ( talk • contribs) 12:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I will just wait until the 19th and reedit and stop YOU from disrupting this article. Thanks (22:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PHILO617 ( talk • contribs)
There is a whol section of the article described as "Related sources". But it's not clear to me what relation, if any, they have to the article subject. They just seem to be random books about exorcism and satanism. I would like to remove these please.
Contaldo80 ( talk) 08:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
All of these books mention Malachi Martin's work as a major source and even have chapters on him. Editor Contaldo has not checked them as secondary sources on Martin when he claims they are random books at all -- they all mention Martin's work in detail. Secondary sources are a huge part of the Wikipedia project. Please leave them in. -- PHILO617 ( talk) 01:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Very pleased to see this has been locked and is being looked at properly. I tried to work on it a while ago but it's always been a pretty awful article, with dodgy sources and some less than sane input from people who don't seem to edit anything else. Couple of points for now, to help the (hopefully inevitable) revision:-
1) Robert Blair Kaiser is a substantial source on MM's life and he is, to put it mildly, he's pretty critical. So of course editors who feel they are called to "defend" MM do what they can to blacken Kaiser's name. But I see The Tablet, probably the most distinguished Catholic journal in the UK, has announced Kaiser will be giving their annual lecture next month (by way of comparison, a swift Google shows previous speakers have included the wife of the Prime Minister, the Archbishop of Westminster and the British Ambassador to the Vatican). My point is that The Tablet presumably (I'm not Catholic) knows what they are doing so one should be wary of sententious editing around Kaiser.
2) (Current) reference 44 is hilarious (an email exchange on some blog, please delete) and (current) reference 43 appears not to connect with the text. Testbed ( talk) 11:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Robert Blair Kaiser's assertions should have counter arguments from William H. Kennedy's critique of the book Clerical Error. Martin himself was a much more successful writer both in sales and reputation than Kaiser and harsh criticisms are allowed of him. Kaiser admits to have had serious psychiatric problems which forced him to be put in a mental institution at the behest of Malachi Martin. To leave this out would be negligent. -- PHILO617 ( talk) 01:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Malachi Brendan Martin (July 23, 1921 – July 27, 1999) was an Irish Catholic priest, theologian, writer on the Catholic Church, and professor at the Vatican's Pontifical Biblical Institute. His 15 novels and non-fiction books were frequently critical of the Vatican, and has been described as revealing an obsession with Satanism[1] (including the 1976 bestseller, "Hostage to the Devil"). A controversial figure, he was a staunch traditionalist who believed that Satan had set in motion a global conspiracy among world powers to erode the moral authority of the Catholic Church. His 1978 book, "The Final Conclave," alleged that alliances existed between the Church and communist nations[2]. and has been described as revealing an obsession with Satanism[1] (including the 1976 bestseller, "Hostage to the Devil").
This is a clearly biased statement and should be removed. "Obsession" is a mere opinion from one minor secondary source. Hostage to the Devil is about demonic possession not Satanism. This should be removed.
A controversial figure,
Bias and should be removed.
he was a staunch traditionalist
Not true -- Martin believed that people of other Faiths could find salvation. He stated this in his book The New Castle which deals with other creeds as being authentic. Martin was a perennial philosopher who believed in the Transcendent Unity of Religion as evinced in his close friendship with Rama Coomaraswamy.
His 1978 book, The Final Conclave, alleged that alliances existed between the Church and communist nations.'
What's the point of this statement in a lead sentence? In Keys of this Blood The Struggle for World Dominion between Pope John Paul II, Mikhail Gorbachev, and the Capitalist West (1990) Martin switched opinions and claimed the Pope was in a battle for power against communists as the title clearly states.
I will revert the lead sentence on the 19th like it or lump it and will appeal to the Admins for a lock after my changes are made and my issues are addressed. The lead sentence is merely an inflammatory and bias statement against Martin. -- PHILO617 ( talk) 14:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
In view of the promises of continued edit warring made above, I have extended the full protection of the article for another two weeks. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Malachi Martin seems to be going nowhere, but it was probably not the ideal place to start according to Wikipedia:Conflict resolution. I would recommend taking the matter to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, and mention the failed(?) request for mediation. Favonian ( talk) 21:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
The slow-burning edit war (now involving three people) shows no indication of stopping, so the article has been fully protected for a month. Please follow the recommendation of the mediator, linked to above, and bring this issue to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Favonian ( talk) 20:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
The photo on the page is NOT of Father Martin. Google a bit to get a picture of him. I tried to post one but can't figure out how.
Lake george ( talk) 02:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)Lake George
"Martin believed the ordinations of several sedevacantist bishops by the former Archbishop of Huế, Vietnam, Pierre Martin Ngô Đình Thục, although not allowed, were sacramentally valid."
But this is admitted by everybody, as far as I know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.75.8.41 ( talk) 19:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Why is the category "Americans of Irish descent" here? He was born in Ireland, and the article makes no mention of his being naturalized. Mannanan51 ( talk) 18:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
There are four photos in the article. The picture of the tombstone is relevant because it directly relates to the subject of the article. Who is the other name on the tombstone?
There is no purpose in showing pictures of Trinity College, St. Peter's Basilica, and Central Park. These could be eliminated with no loss of information. Surely there must be a pictures of Martin himself in the public domain which could be added to the article. 173.49.55.36 ( talk) 10:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, it seems that this whole 'lady of Fátima' thing takes the Wikipedian down a very puzzling rabbit hole. I see, for instance, that Wikipedia states there was "huge crowd, variously estimated between 30,000 and 100,000" at the alleged sighting - while other evidence has shown that the crowd was much lower. There are also issues in that article about the sun 'dancing' that probably deserve more emphasis - basically, it seems like it was written from the Roman Catholic perspective, and probably using the (terrible) movie for much of its 'evidence'.
How does it link to this article? In paragraph 3, Martin is stated to hold the view that the Catholic Church "had failed to act on the third prophecy revealed by the Virgin Mary at Fátima". Firstly, the Lady of Fátima was never claimed by the children to be Mary. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, that 'third prophecy' was 'disclosed' by the last of the children to live. None of the 'prophecies' made by the children and by Sister Lucia were able to be sensibly testable. In particular, there is a lot of doubt cast upon the basis for this 'third prophecy', which is surely relevant in this article as much as in the entry on the Lady of Fátima.
Both articles seem to lack basic rigour; instead presenting what are almost certainly fictions as facts. Can someone who knows more about Mr Martin - and the Lady of Fátima - possibly have a look at what can be done to bring them into line with a standard secular encyclopaedia? Ambiguosity ( talk) 13:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
The current article says he received "a dispensation from his vows of poverty and obedience." It then adds "Even if dispensed from his religious vow of chastity ...." Was this separate from the previously-mentioned dispensation? -- Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 12:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
There is some debate concerning the claims of those who knew Martin that he had been secretly ordained a bishop to do work in the Communist Eastern Bloc. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydney Rigdon ( talk • contribs) 18:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Malachi Martin. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Malachi Martin. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/vatican-ii---the-jews-3979When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Why - despite having been identified over ten years ago and included in this article several times since - is a serious source on MM's life currently not featured or even referenced? I presume some editors are carefully suppressing it. This is not good.
To quote an earlier editor (see the archived Talk comments) there is an informed discussion of Martin and his work in the National Catholic Reporter by a distinguished professor of theology at Dominican University, Chicago, Fr. Richard Woods OP, in the edition of April 29th, 2005. Here's a selection of comments from that piece:-
Back in the 1970s, when possession and exorcism were the cinematic and fictional flavor of the era--one that historian Martin Marty appropriately called "the silly season"--it fell to my lot to conduct a pre-publication review of Malachi Martin's sensational book Hostage to the Devil. I was allied in this with an internationally celebrated clinical psychologist. Working independently, our conclusion was the same: Martin's five "cases" were fabrications of an inventive but disturbed mind, lacking all psychological, historical, theological and pastoral credibility. Some time later, I interviewed Malachi Martin on television. A former priest, Martin had left the Jesuit order under cloudy conditions, to say the least. (The sordid details were described in Robert Blair Kaiser's agonized 2002 memoir, Clerical Error: A True Story.) In person, I found Martin to be a clever, charming, engaging Irish rogue who evaded every effort to document the instances of possession he so graphically described. In the end, my earlier suspicion that Martin was a deeply disturbed individual was strongly reinforced. A decade later, when M. Scott Peck's second book, People of the Lie, was published, I was appalled to find that he, a newly committed Christian of a vaguely evangelical stripe, had accepted and endorsed Martin's fictional ravings as accurate and instructive case studies... ...Insouciant in his ignorance of the real history of and the extensive literature on possession phenomena, Dr. Peck hails Martin as "the greatest expert on the subject of possession and exorcism in the English-speaking world" and "brilliant," despite his own misgivings and warnings from colleagues that Martin was a sociopath. The psychiatrist's resolute adulation of Martin is thus both disturbing and misleading. Despite Dr. Peck's claim that he was the most famous exorcist in the world, Malachi Martin had no discernible training, expertise or even adequate knowledge of the history or ministry of exorcism in--or out of--the Catholic faith he once professed but which he bitterly turned against at the end of his unhappy life. Moreover, by Dr. Peck's own frequent admission, Martin was a liar and manipulator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.2.140 ( talk) 06:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
"Martin's years in Rome coincided with the beginning of the Second Vatican Council (1962–65), which was to transform the Catholic Church in a way that the initially liberal Martin began to find distressing." -I thought the conservatives like Ottaviani were the ones upset. Mannanan51 ( talk) 02:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is the subject of a request emailed to the
Volunteer Response Team (VRT). Issues identified are: regarding
WP:BLPNAME of a related person |
Archive:
With all the scholarly material supposedly in this article, why are over 20 refs pointing to an audio tape made by a true believer that is not available to the general public? Surely we can do better, can we not?-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
This discussion page is full of comments that are years old. And just recently there are responses to comments that are a few years old. Unless there is an objection, I intend to archive most or all of what's on the page currently. MasterPainter ( talk) 05:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
According to the article, "He [M. Scott Peck] later fell out with Martin." This is sourced via footnote [21], which leads here: http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2005b/042905/042905m.htm. Nothing in that link, however, suggests that Peck had a falling out with Martin; rather, the article (a book review of Peck's "Glimpses of the Devil") is critical of Peck for relying on Martin too heavily as a source. I'm not comfortable changing the primary article since it is possible that the link has changed, but in the absence of support, someone may want to change the citation or, at minimum, take it with some salt. Smontg2 ( talk) 09:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
This is a long (and rather tedious) article about someone who doesn't seem to be particularly notable. Can we chop it back a bit and make it a bit more user friendly. What is Martin actually notable for? Writing a couple of books? Anything else? Contaldo80 ( talk) 09:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
References
I have restored a line in the lead that said Martin promoted unsubstantiated claims and conspiracy theories involving the Catholic Church. Among other things Martin claimed in his written works that:
If anyone can provide evidence that these four claims have indeed been substantiated then I agree we can reword the lead to reflect. Thanks. Contaldo80 ( talk) 12:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I am removing the following;
"Deeply conservative and a controversial commentator on the Vatican,[1] he promoted many unsubstantiated claims and conspiracy theories involving the Church."
This is an opinion and is does not convey the Wikipedia spirit of neutrality and is a mere opinion. ( PHILO617 ( talk) 13:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC))
What "facts to hand"? Calling his claims unsubstantiated is not true. Most of his claims were proven true like the pedophile scandal. I will continue to change the lead sentence and you can call in third party Wikipedia editors to help decide. You are bias against Martin. ( PHILO617 ( talk) 13:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC))
I am currently seeking Wiki dispute resolution to help decide this matter and will continue to edit the article and have added that Martins views were contested. I am working on getting a third party in the Wikipedia community to help with this dispute. ( PHILO617 ( talk) 13:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC))
Hi, I filed a dispute resolution appeal at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Malachi_Martin%20Article ( PHILO617 ( talk) 13:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC))
Would a compromise be acceptable on the lead article: A controversial figure, Martin was a harsh critic of the Vatican whose opinions were often contested and considered unsubstantiated." ( PHILO617 ( talk) 14:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC))
Also Martin is not considered all that conservative as he believed that people could find salvation outside the Church of Rome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PHILO617 ( talk • contribs) 14:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Some of his views were theological opinions and cannot be proven like the Anti Christ is alive. I feel the word considered is more accurate. Here is some links proving Martin was a theological liberal: http://www.revisionisthistory.org/wire3.html ( PHILO617 ( talk) 16:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC))
The term "conspiracy theorist" is an unfair and demeaning term and should not be used. Its a Point of View you hold as opposed to a fact. I consider his work to be solid and many of his assertions proved true. For example in The Final Conclave (1978) he claimed the Vatican was involved ion shady banking deals with Freemasons and organized crime This was confirmed in the book In God's Name (1983) by David Yallop. I am enjoying this dialogue and wish you no ill will on a personal level I hope you know. I will continue to undo things that are POV's as opposed to facts and you may challenge them and/or seek a neutral third party Wikipedia editor.( PHILO617 ( talk) 18:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC))
Popes John XXIII and Paul VI were freemasons; source article: http://rense.com/general73/ppe.htm Agostino Casaroli, long-time Cardinal Secretary of State, was an atheist. Based on Martin's work at the Vatican under Cardinal Bea. A diplomatic agreement existed between the Vatican and the U.S.S.R. called the Metz Accord. Source article: http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a007ht.htm (with newspaper references) The antichrist was a literal historical figure, and was alive in 1996. A theological opinion. Much like the existence of God it cannot be proved or disproved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PHILO617 ( talk • contribs) 22:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid the term conspiracy theory is too harsh to use for these marginal themes in the whole of Malachi Martin's writing. I will continue to undue your posts and perhaps you should seek a third party editor. ( PHILO617 ( talk) 11:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC))
No I have addressed these issues please get a third party evaluation if you like. If not I will continue to undo. You are making bias statements against MM ( PHILO617 ( talk) 12:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC))
What sources support the claim that Martin "was a regular quest on such programs as Oprah Winfrey, Sean Hannity, CNN and Coast to Coast AM hosted by Art Bell."? Regular would have to mean more than a couple of times, and guest would need to be an interviewed guest (not in a segment). Contaldo80 ( talk) 15:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Please request a third party Wiki editor to arbitrate.( PHILO617 ( talk) 15:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC))
Martin on Ophrah : http://www.christianity.com/christian%20living/features/11622254/page5/
Martin on Hammity: http://satanicpanicnews.blogspot.com/2007_08_01_archive.html
Martin on C2C: http://www.coasttocoastam.com/search/?query=MALACHI+MARTIN — Preceding unsigned comment added by PHILO617 ( talk • contribs) 15:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
First off you are becoming disruptive making wild claims that Martin was obsessed with Satanism. He wrote a book on it. Plus your lead is too long you can address the issues below in the critical sections. I am contacting an administrator now. (
PHILO617 (
talk) 15:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC))
Hi, Working on getting mediation from the top. Obsession is too harsh a word for a lead. No hard feelings I hope you know.( PHILO617 ( talk) 16:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC))
filed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/MalachiMartin — Preceding unsigned comment added by PHILO617 ( talk • contribs) 17:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Hostage to the Devil is about demonic possession not satanism.
Calling MM obsessed is merely an opinion and an insult no matter where it appeared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PHILO617 ( talk • contribs) 12:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I will just wait until the 19th and reedit and stop YOU from disrupting this article. Thanks (22:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PHILO617 ( talk • contribs)
There is a whol section of the article described as "Related sources". But it's not clear to me what relation, if any, they have to the article subject. They just seem to be random books about exorcism and satanism. I would like to remove these please.
Contaldo80 ( talk) 08:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
All of these books mention Malachi Martin's work as a major source and even have chapters on him. Editor Contaldo has not checked them as secondary sources on Martin when he claims they are random books at all -- they all mention Martin's work in detail. Secondary sources are a huge part of the Wikipedia project. Please leave them in. -- PHILO617 ( talk) 01:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Very pleased to see this has been locked and is being looked at properly. I tried to work on it a while ago but it's always been a pretty awful article, with dodgy sources and some less than sane input from people who don't seem to edit anything else. Couple of points for now, to help the (hopefully inevitable) revision:-
1) Robert Blair Kaiser is a substantial source on MM's life and he is, to put it mildly, he's pretty critical. So of course editors who feel they are called to "defend" MM do what they can to blacken Kaiser's name. But I see The Tablet, probably the most distinguished Catholic journal in the UK, has announced Kaiser will be giving their annual lecture next month (by way of comparison, a swift Google shows previous speakers have included the wife of the Prime Minister, the Archbishop of Westminster and the British Ambassador to the Vatican). My point is that The Tablet presumably (I'm not Catholic) knows what they are doing so one should be wary of sententious editing around Kaiser.
2) (Current) reference 44 is hilarious (an email exchange on some blog, please delete) and (current) reference 43 appears not to connect with the text. Testbed ( talk) 11:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Robert Blair Kaiser's assertions should have counter arguments from William H. Kennedy's critique of the book Clerical Error. Martin himself was a much more successful writer both in sales and reputation than Kaiser and harsh criticisms are allowed of him. Kaiser admits to have had serious psychiatric problems which forced him to be put in a mental institution at the behest of Malachi Martin. To leave this out would be negligent. -- PHILO617 ( talk) 01:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Malachi Brendan Martin (July 23, 1921 – July 27, 1999) was an Irish Catholic priest, theologian, writer on the Catholic Church, and professor at the Vatican's Pontifical Biblical Institute. His 15 novels and non-fiction books were frequently critical of the Vatican, and has been described as revealing an obsession with Satanism[1] (including the 1976 bestseller, "Hostage to the Devil"). A controversial figure, he was a staunch traditionalist who believed that Satan had set in motion a global conspiracy among world powers to erode the moral authority of the Catholic Church. His 1978 book, "The Final Conclave," alleged that alliances existed between the Church and communist nations[2]. and has been described as revealing an obsession with Satanism[1] (including the 1976 bestseller, "Hostage to the Devil").
This is a clearly biased statement and should be removed. "Obsession" is a mere opinion from one minor secondary source. Hostage to the Devil is about demonic possession not Satanism. This should be removed.
A controversial figure,
Bias and should be removed.
he was a staunch traditionalist
Not true -- Martin believed that people of other Faiths could find salvation. He stated this in his book The New Castle which deals with other creeds as being authentic. Martin was a perennial philosopher who believed in the Transcendent Unity of Religion as evinced in his close friendship with Rama Coomaraswamy.
His 1978 book, The Final Conclave, alleged that alliances existed between the Church and communist nations.'
What's the point of this statement in a lead sentence? In Keys of this Blood The Struggle for World Dominion between Pope John Paul II, Mikhail Gorbachev, and the Capitalist West (1990) Martin switched opinions and claimed the Pope was in a battle for power against communists as the title clearly states.
I will revert the lead sentence on the 19th like it or lump it and will appeal to the Admins for a lock after my changes are made and my issues are addressed. The lead sentence is merely an inflammatory and bias statement against Martin. -- PHILO617 ( talk) 14:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
In view of the promises of continued edit warring made above, I have extended the full protection of the article for another two weeks. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Malachi Martin seems to be going nowhere, but it was probably not the ideal place to start according to Wikipedia:Conflict resolution. I would recommend taking the matter to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, and mention the failed(?) request for mediation. Favonian ( talk) 21:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
The slow-burning edit war (now involving three people) shows no indication of stopping, so the article has been fully protected for a month. Please follow the recommendation of the mediator, linked to above, and bring this issue to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Favonian ( talk) 20:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
The photo on the page is NOT of Father Martin. Google a bit to get a picture of him. I tried to post one but can't figure out how.
Lake george ( talk) 02:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)Lake George
"Martin believed the ordinations of several sedevacantist bishops by the former Archbishop of Huế, Vietnam, Pierre Martin Ngô Đình Thục, although not allowed, were sacramentally valid."
But this is admitted by everybody, as far as I know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.75.8.41 ( talk) 19:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Why is the category "Americans of Irish descent" here? He was born in Ireland, and the article makes no mention of his being naturalized. Mannanan51 ( talk) 18:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
There are four photos in the article. The picture of the tombstone is relevant because it directly relates to the subject of the article. Who is the other name on the tombstone?
There is no purpose in showing pictures of Trinity College, St. Peter's Basilica, and Central Park. These could be eliminated with no loss of information. Surely there must be a pictures of Martin himself in the public domain which could be added to the article. 173.49.55.36 ( talk) 10:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, it seems that this whole 'lady of Fátima' thing takes the Wikipedian down a very puzzling rabbit hole. I see, for instance, that Wikipedia states there was "huge crowd, variously estimated between 30,000 and 100,000" at the alleged sighting - while other evidence has shown that the crowd was much lower. There are also issues in that article about the sun 'dancing' that probably deserve more emphasis - basically, it seems like it was written from the Roman Catholic perspective, and probably using the (terrible) movie for much of its 'evidence'.
How does it link to this article? In paragraph 3, Martin is stated to hold the view that the Catholic Church "had failed to act on the third prophecy revealed by the Virgin Mary at Fátima". Firstly, the Lady of Fátima was never claimed by the children to be Mary. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, that 'third prophecy' was 'disclosed' by the last of the children to live. None of the 'prophecies' made by the children and by Sister Lucia were able to be sensibly testable. In particular, there is a lot of doubt cast upon the basis for this 'third prophecy', which is surely relevant in this article as much as in the entry on the Lady of Fátima.
Both articles seem to lack basic rigour; instead presenting what are almost certainly fictions as facts. Can someone who knows more about Mr Martin - and the Lady of Fátima - possibly have a look at what can be done to bring them into line with a standard secular encyclopaedia? Ambiguosity ( talk) 13:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
The current article says he received "a dispensation from his vows of poverty and obedience." It then adds "Even if dispensed from his religious vow of chastity ...." Was this separate from the previously-mentioned dispensation? -- Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 12:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
There is some debate concerning the claims of those who knew Martin that he had been secretly ordained a bishop to do work in the Communist Eastern Bloc. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydney Rigdon ( talk • contribs) 18:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Malachi Martin. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Malachi Martin. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/vatican-ii---the-jews-3979When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Why - despite having been identified over ten years ago and included in this article several times since - is a serious source on MM's life currently not featured or even referenced? I presume some editors are carefully suppressing it. This is not good.
To quote an earlier editor (see the archived Talk comments) there is an informed discussion of Martin and his work in the National Catholic Reporter by a distinguished professor of theology at Dominican University, Chicago, Fr. Richard Woods OP, in the edition of April 29th, 2005. Here's a selection of comments from that piece:-
Back in the 1970s, when possession and exorcism were the cinematic and fictional flavor of the era--one that historian Martin Marty appropriately called "the silly season"--it fell to my lot to conduct a pre-publication review of Malachi Martin's sensational book Hostage to the Devil. I was allied in this with an internationally celebrated clinical psychologist. Working independently, our conclusion was the same: Martin's five "cases" were fabrications of an inventive but disturbed mind, lacking all psychological, historical, theological and pastoral credibility. Some time later, I interviewed Malachi Martin on television. A former priest, Martin had left the Jesuit order under cloudy conditions, to say the least. (The sordid details were described in Robert Blair Kaiser's agonized 2002 memoir, Clerical Error: A True Story.) In person, I found Martin to be a clever, charming, engaging Irish rogue who evaded every effort to document the instances of possession he so graphically described. In the end, my earlier suspicion that Martin was a deeply disturbed individual was strongly reinforced. A decade later, when M. Scott Peck's second book, People of the Lie, was published, I was appalled to find that he, a newly committed Christian of a vaguely evangelical stripe, had accepted and endorsed Martin's fictional ravings as accurate and instructive case studies... ...Insouciant in his ignorance of the real history of and the extensive literature on possession phenomena, Dr. Peck hails Martin as "the greatest expert on the subject of possession and exorcism in the English-speaking world" and "brilliant," despite his own misgivings and warnings from colleagues that Martin was a sociopath. The psychiatrist's resolute adulation of Martin is thus both disturbing and misleading. Despite Dr. Peck's claim that he was the most famous exorcist in the world, Malachi Martin had no discernible training, expertise or even adequate knowledge of the history or ministry of exorcism in--or out of--the Catholic faith he once professed but which he bitterly turned against at the end of his unhappy life. Moreover, by Dr. Peck's own frequent admission, Martin was a liar and manipulator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.2.140 ( talk) 06:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
"Martin's years in Rome coincided with the beginning of the Second Vatican Council (1962–65), which was to transform the Catholic Church in a way that the initially liberal Martin began to find distressing." -I thought the conservatives like Ottaviani were the ones upset. Mannanan51 ( talk) 02:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)