Talk:Étienne-Léon de Lamothe-Langon

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Literature

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature 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.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

'Forgery' Is Not the Right Word

There's a NY Times story today about a reporter for Der Spiegel who falsified much "on a grand scale" in his reporting. Nowhere in the article, or associated article by those who exposed the issue, did I see the word "forger," because "forgery" is commonly understood to imply the existence of some physical documents that were created, and made to appear original. The half dozen trials in question that Lamothe-Langon claims to have transcribed/translated from the Latin of inquisitors into French may or may not have existed, but there would seem to be little incentive for Lamothe-Langon to have actually created fake documents that appeared centuries old. Neither Kieckhefer nor Cohn claim that such forgeries actually exist but the use of the word "forgery" implies they do exist and were proven false, as with, for instance, the forged Hitler diaries. It would seem to show some runaway enthusiasm on the part of both Kieckhefer and Cohn that they over-reach and use this word incorrectly (Kieckhefer (1976) p. 17. Cohn (1975) p. 185.) The NY Times article contains a number of synonyms that would seem more appropriate for their educated but nonetheless speculative charge: "falsification" "invention" "fiction" etc.

As a caution, we should consider another charge that was contemporaneous, and also on the subject of witch hunts. In 1985 Harold Jantz published an essay declaring a September 2, 1692 letter from Cotton Mather a "forgery" (Mythos und Aufklarung Meindl/Horlacher (eds) p. 6). Jantz was only aware of the existence of a transcript of the letter, and the only publication that reprinted it (Kenneth Silverman (1971)-- he also won a Bancroft prize in 1985) seemed to suggest the authenticity might be dubious. Jantz submitted his essay for publication only to find out that the holograph had arrived in archives of Boston College around 1980, and had been fully authenticated, but had received little scholarly attention-- despite this being an era of widespread interest in the witch hunts-- probably because it was anti-thetical to the reigning view. Jantz' mistake, and the holograph of the letter in the archives, both remained relatively unknown until a graduate student working at the library unwittingly wrote a Halloween blog about it in 2014!

The stronger the bias, the bigger the blindspot. Encouraging robust debate can help us to possibly become aware of holes in our vision. Lewismr (talk) 15:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]