Talk:The Amber Witch

message: The article does not make it at all clear how this book called into questions the weaknesses of historical methods. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how it could be clearer. The top men in the field couldn't note any sign of a forgery until the forger himself told them. And even then he wasn't believed. It demonstrates how subjective the study is, the reasearcher sees what he expects to see. If he believs it to be medieval he will study it as such. If you have any suggestions though I would be glad to add them.Wolf2191 16:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes indeed. But the article itself has all the stylistic marks of something composed in the early 20th century, or possibly even before. If you wrote it yourself, you have a remarkable command of "voice"; if not, you should identify the original author. PiCo 05:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  One whole section is lifted entire from Warner's text (cited in the sources on the bottom of the page).  Even if the work isn't copyright, this is disingenuous and of dubious scholastic value.  Even the reply given below ("I compiled it") concedes the issue.  Nowhere does the article's author make clear that this is a compilation...An entry about a literary fraud does not need to replicate the event in order to make itself clear.Cairninthemist (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Historical context is number five on the DH list. The first four involve a detection of specific linguistic styles an the like.Wolf2191 14:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Where does Wellhausen claim that the interpolater was a forger?  I haven't read anything by him that I can recall where he does this.  I am not even sure Wellhausen ever claimed that the intention of the Interpolater (redactor) was to make the Torah/Hexateuch "appear earlier than it was." Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I've restructured and re-written this to make it clear which segments were direct quotes from contemporary sources and which were not and to remove the copyvio from bellaonline.com. I've also provided exact references for the sources with full bibliographic information and copyedited it for coherence and to remove repetition. Was this a joke by a Wikipedia editor to demonstrate a literary hoax in action? I'm more inclined to think it was simple laziness and intellectual dishonesty. The resultant cut and paste job was not only incoherent but blatant plagiarism, and in one instance blatant copyright violation. Not funny, I'm afraid. Voceditenore (talk) 13:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  May 2009 - re-written and why 

message: Here we give publication dates 1838 for the German-language original, 1844 for two different translations published in Britain. 
German Wikipedia gives original publication date 1843. If I understand and express adequately, it calls the work a re-working or adaptation of another story (length unknown to me) that Meinhold completed in 1826, and submitted for publication without success. Not sure it was submitted to any publishing business, or directly to an office for consideration. German Wikipedia fashions that other story "Meinholds Pfarrerstochter zu Coserow (1826)", which would here imply a book published in 1826. But it was unpublished as of 1843, and evidently its re-worked/adapted story unrecognized. 
 
(Rejected in Roman Catholic Vienna for its attitude toward or portrayal of Gustavus Adolphus --lobende Beziehung ..., maybe but uncertainly a quotation from the 17th century censor). --P64 (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publication and composition