Talk:Pseudo-Isidore

Middle Ages Mid‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comments

See below for discussion of the impending merge.

The original version of this article can be found in the German Wikipedia (http://de.wiki.x.io/wiki/Pseudoisidor) and is adapted from http://www.pseudoisidor.de/html/uberblick.html under the GNU Free Documentation License

This article appears to be identical in its subject with the article on Pseudo-Isidorian forgeries and the article on False Decretals while only the sources appear to be different. Why not merge all three articles into one? -tlatosmd, June 21st 2005, 9:20pm CET

Sounds good to me, but I'm generally a lumper. Shall we hold the discussion at Talk:Pseudo-Isidorian forgeries? --Wetman 20:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay. -tlatosmd, June 22nd 2005, 2:05am

Pseudo-Isidore is a well established name in the textual apparatus of learned theological works. Things like Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals or Pseudo-Isidorian forgeries are simply adjectives built on it. I think the whole thing should be merged to Pseudo-Isidore, with cleanups and good merges. --FourthAve 10:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copy the above post to Talk:Pseudo-Isidorian forgeries, where a desultory discussion lags somewhat. --Wetman 21:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Start of merge

There are three articles:

Pseudo-Isidore which is based on German wiki
False Decretals partly based on EB 1911
Pseudo-Isidorian forgeries, also EB 1911 based.
There is also the Catholic Encyclopedia article, which is useful by quite long.
[1] This site is also useful.

The merge itself will be a little difficult in that all three articles are longish There is still the matter of deciding what to title the final merged article, but repeat my decided preference for Pseudo-Isidore. --FourthAve 12:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The other two articles are available via their history if you click on the little 'redirected from' bit when you land here. --FourthAve 19:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added material formerly at Pseudo-Isidorian forgeries to serve as an introduction. The material formerly at False Decretals is here, with a lot of information that was left behind. Editing it into this article will complete the move. --Wetman 07:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why Fake?

It might be a good idea do describe why the Pseudo-Isidore is fake. To just call it fake in each and every sentence doesn't make it fake. Is it possible that parts of the documents are true? Or is it proven that all is fake? Reko (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's complicated. Some (very little) of the material is genuine, but only to give the overall forgery an assumed authority. Most of the material is either based on deliberately and heavily edited and distorted sources in order to further the forgers's aims (where the forgers partly name the real sources, partly don't name them, and partly deliberately misattribute them), or is entirely fake but attributed to sources that really existed as historical people or historical books.

Finally, the parts authored by Benedict Levita are very different from the rest both tactically, structurally, and rhetorically, insomuch as some scholars have deduced that Benedict was the original and more talented forger and already while he was creating his parts, less talented forgers inspired by him did the rest, whereas Benedict seems to have been at least partially aware of the other parts, although not necessarily in their final form. It could be that either Benedict started alone and his forgeries, while still in production, inspired imitators that he was in contact with, or Benedict from the beginning was sort-of the head of what could be considered a workshop of forgers and he delegated to others those parts he considered less pivotal to the overall work. --80.187.110.67 (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Knibbs

Eric Knibbs has been doing some very important work on Pseudo-Isidore recently. In particular he has been adding to/modifying the important conclusions reached by Zechiel-Eckes. His name, and a summary of his findings, should certainly be added to this article. Knibbs blogs a about his Pseudo-Isidore research here: http://pseudoisidore.blogspot.ca/ Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article title change: "Pseudo-Isidorian forgeries" rather than "...decretals"

Flattering to find kind remarks about my scribblings here. If there is any way to change the title of the article to "Pseudo-Isidorian forgeries," that would be helpful. "Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals" implies that the article is only about the False Decretals, one constituent of the Pseudo-Isidorian forgery complex. In fact the article addresses the whole problem of Pseudo-Isidore and so should have a broader title. I don't know how to change titles exactly, so I comment here. Eric.knibbs (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]