Talk:Malachi Martin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search




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)

Everybody can buy/rent/copy the sourced material that is given in reference. The fact that a person does not do it, does not make the reference invalid. All the texts of Martin are available, some easy, some after intensive research or purchase. But non are not available. To imply otherwise and to come up with 'weasel'words as 'true believer' are in itself an indication of a non neutral point of view. --Stijn Calle (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
You're missing the point. The tape is not available, it is out of print. Secondly, what makes it reliable? Anyone can produce a tape and it sounds like an extended eulogy/obituary; which is a shame because a lot of great things have been published by reliable sources about Martin.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Lot's of books are out of print. They are not out of existance. If it is the cassette tape you mean, i have a copy. --Stijn Calle (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk page entries should be archived[edit]

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)

Has been done.--Stijn Calle (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Source does not offer support for the information cited[edit]

According to the article, "He [M. Scott Peck] later fell out with Martin." This is sourced via footnote [21], which leads here: 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)

Per my comment above, I removed this from the main page: "He later fell out with Martin.[1]" Again, the article does not support the statement; rather, it is a criticism of Peck for relying too heavily on Martin.Smontg2 (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Why has this statement been returned to the article? --Nonstopdrivel (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
In the absence of an answer to the above, I removed it again. This is what I removed: "He later fell out with Martin.[2]" Again, I removed it because that article simply criticizes Peck for relying on Martin. There are zero indications from THAT source that Peck repudiated Martin. If Peck indeed did so, find a source! Smontg2 (talk) 13:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I have (not for the first time I see) removed this reference on the basis that the statement "He later fell out with Martin" is completely unsubstantiated. Indeed, if anything, the very opposite is implied. I have no strong opinions either way, only discovering Martin today whilst researching a project, but it worries me when wikipedia contributors do not write in context. I think Woods article, though interesting, reads as incredibly subjective and would garner more credibility with some references of its own. This would help it earn its place in wikiedia references. If it is to be cited, please place it in context. --Responsiballot (talk) 23:23, 23 November 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)

Because it is not YOUR field of knowledge, you cannot judge. An encyclopaedia must be encyclopaedic, not short because it doesn't suit one's personal tastes. --Stijn Calle (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I can judge thanks very much. I wouldn't presume to draft a long article (or indeed an article at all) about my dog as he isn't particularly notable. There is nothing (yet) in this article which suggests to me that Martin is particularly significant - other than writing a few fringe books. Can you please explain to me in one sentence why you think he justifies having such a long and detailed article (much of which is currently very dull)? Otherwise I fear the drafting of this article is being used to enhance Martin's reputation unjustly.Contaldo80 (talk) 08:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The article is extensive. Which is normal for an encyclopaedia. This should be a positive quality, not a negative one.--Stijn Calle (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand the nature of encyclopaedias. Not all articles within an encyclopaedia will require extensive coverage - particularly if the subject is of minor interest or notability. Malachi Martin does not justify this amount of detail - the article is far too long, rambling and with too much circumstantial detail. What does it matter what jobs hi brothers did for example? This could do with a good prune. And I ask you again what justifies such a lenghty article? It's longer than that of most popes on wikipedia! Contaldo80 (talk) 08:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
The articles about the said popes are to short. They should be lengthened. You should not shrink WP from valuable info, but extend it with valuable info.--Stijn Calle (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
A 4000 word article! The subject does not justify it. He is simply not important or notable enough. I still don't understand why he should be of interest - apart from a couple of books? His works rather then being seminal seem out of date in terms of the issues covered and conclusions reached. Time for some serious cuts! Contaldo80 (talk) 12:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
For people interested in exorcism and possession, Martin is an important figure, and his credibility is frequently called into question. As many of his works are supposed to be based on his own experiences, details of his life and the various claims and counter-claims that are made regarding their veracity are useful and informative, and there are few other places where this information is readily available. Cleaning up? Fine. Serious cuts I would consider unwarranted.Mcgreig (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


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:

  • Popes John XXIII and Paul VI were freemasons;
  • Agostino Casaroli, long-time Cardinal Secretary of State, was an atheist.
  • A diplomatic agreement existed between the Vatican and the U.S.S.R. called the Metz Accord.
  • The antichrist was a literal historical figure, and was alive in 1996.

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)

Malachi Martin Biased Statemeant[edit]

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))

Could you address the point above please. Rather than opinion this seems based on the facts to hand. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:12, 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 (PHILO617 (talk) 13:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC))

Good luck. You have consistently failed to address the points I have raised above about the lead. And I also don't think you should accuse me of bias, unless you are able to point to evidence that I am. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:53, 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 (talkcontribs) 14:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

His claims are not "considered" substantiated, but rather they are unsubstantiated - they also amount to conspiracy theory. Surely he was socially conservative? Contaldo80 (talk) 15:29, 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: (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:
   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: (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 (talkcontribs) 22:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC) 
I'm afraid none of these references are mainstream or credible. The websites are unreliable. Can you provide better sources please that definitively show that two popes were actually freemasons, that the Metz Accord was a genuine treaty, and that Casaroli was an atheist. Without this we must continue to assume that Martin made unsubstantiated and fringe claims, several of which are conspiray theories. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:52, 4 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, you will need to demonstrate that Martin's claims were substantiated and mainstream otherwise it is correct to say he promoted conspiract theories. Please do not revert until you have addressed these issues. Contaldo80 (talk)

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 :

Martin on Hammity:

Martin on C2C: — Preceding unsigned comment added by PHILO617 (talkcontribs) 15:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not asking anyone to arbitrate. But I will ask an administrator to consider blocking you from editing as you are beginning to be disruptive. The additions I put into the lead are supported by a mainstream source (the LA Times). On the other hand, your additions about him being a 'hugely popular' broadcaster are based on no supporting evidence at all. You also make claims that he was a regular guest on shows such as Oprah Winfrey. But the reference you offer shows that he appeared just once, and then only in a segment outside the studio. Not interviewed as a guest by Winfrey and far from regular. Abide by WP rules on stop editing. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:28, 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))

Please, please go ahead and contact an administrator as I feel I'm getting nowhere. The LA Times talks about his obsession with satanism, not me. The lead is of a perfectly fine for an article of this length. You have still not justified the claims about media - so do not revert until you haev provided supporting source material. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:51, 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))

"Obsession" is used directly in the supporting reference from Martin's obituary in the LA Times. On the other hand, you have offered no supporting references for your amendments. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I didn't realize there was dispute about this, apologies I should have checked before editing. In my opinion while the LA times is a mainstream source the use of this particular obituary is biased and a poor choice for the lead. Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 09:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Why is it biased? And even if we decide there may be a better word to use than "obsessed" (which we haven't even discussed), why did you feel the need to remove the rest of the text around it (including reference to his 15 works and his bestseller), yet leave the section about media in place? This doesn't strike me as a balanced approach. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I was going to reinstate the rest of the text, that was a mistake. I've already argued the point about bias in my edit summary, I'm not getting involved further. Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 10:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Editorial Dispute[edit]

filed: — Preceding unsigned comment added by PHILO617 (talkcontribs) 17:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hostage to the Devil and Obsession[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 12:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not debating this any further. You are promoting orifinal research and I remind you of the wiki rules on WP:OR. I have cited the source and have kept within the rules. Stop disrupting this article. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:53, 12 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 (talkcontribs)

Administrators please take note. An editor has indicated that they have no intention of addressing outstanding issues around the provision of reliable sources. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Related sources[edit]

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.

  • Nicholas Hagger's The Secret History of the West and The Syndicate
  • Kennedy, William H. (2004). Lucifer's lodge : satanic ritual abuse in the Catholic Church (1st ed.). Hillsdale, *NY: Sophia Perennis. ISBN 978-0-900588-06-8.
  • Luigi Marinelli's Shroud of Secrecy: The Story of Corruption Within the Vatican
  • I Millenari's Fumo di Satana in Vaticano
  • Charles Upton's The System of Antichrist
  • Ralph M. Wiltgen's The Rhine Flows into the Tiber

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)

Come on - you can't just list any book that references the subject of an article. How much detail do they really provide - which actually have chapters dealing only ith Martin? If it's a biography then fine but otherwise it doesn't add anything by having such a long list. If there is something of note in the books then put it in the article and add a reference. Otherwise time to scrap this list.

This article[edit]

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)

You neglected to mention that by Robert Blair Kaiser's own account Malachi Martin had an affair with Kaiser's wife and destroyed his marriage, so well regarded as Kaiser may be for his work generally, he can hardly be considered an objective source in this instance. Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 08:02, 17 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)

Testbed - I'm really glad you've joined the discussion. I agree that this article is simply awful - it's written as some sort of apologia or fan page. I have no particular axe to grind with Martin but it irritates me that so there's so much in this article that is wrong. I likewise agree we should use a lot more of Kaiser. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Lead Sentence[edit]

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)

Administrators once again please take note. Editor states "I will revert the lead sentence on the 19th like it or lump it". There is no attempt to address the isses under discussion in order to reach agreement. I want to restate yet again that the references for 'satanism', 'traditionalism' etc are found in the source provided (Martin's obituary in the LA Times - this can't be described as a minor secondary source.) Yet there are no sources backing up previous clims about broadcasting popularity. Martin's obituary from the Independent newspaper also reinforces the points in the LA Times. I would like to add this reference to the lead too please Contaldo80 (talk) 08:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Administrators once again please take note. The locked page clearly states that this is not an endorsement of the version given. Consequently, I can revert the article by Wikipedia policy. The other editor also states "I'm afraid I'm not debating this any further." showing his unwillingness to reach consensus and he should be blocked from editing this page. Who is he to end any debate on Wikipedia? The LA Times was wrong in its definitions -- newspapers are not automatically correct. That is the argument from authority which constitutes a logical fallacy. I backed my claims about Martin's popularity by giving the date of the Oprah show and the fact the OW, Sean Hannity and Coast to Coast to Coast AM are hugely popular shows -- no one can deny that fact and Martin was a regular guest on these programs. I also addressed every issue bought up but Contaldo80 is, in his own words, "not debating this any further." This is willful ignorance on his part and against Wikipedia policies. --PHILO617 (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid that is not wikipedia works. It isn't for you to decide that the LA Times was wrong. Instead you should challenge whether it meets WP guidance on WP:reliability - which it does. But nor is this isolated - I have now also provided the obituary from the Independent which supports the points made. Nor does one appearance on a segment on the Oprah show support a claim of Martin being a "regular guest". The claim was made that Martin was 'hugely popular', and not that he appeared on 'hugely popular' shows. If you adhere to WP guidelines and rules then I am happy to engage; if, however, you insist on ignoring the rules and doing as you please then I stand by my earlier comment that I will not be drawn into fruitless debate. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid that you do not decide how Wikipedia works. Its not for you decide whether a source is valid. It is for the consensus of the project not your opinion. You stated 'I will not be drawn into fruitless debate." You are free to leave and go onto other articles. This is further proof that you should be blocked from editing this page because you want to be the final say and are attacking anyone who disagrees with your edits. I will revert and ask for an admin to intervene and settle this edit war which you started. --PHILO617 (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
If you believe that the LA Times and the Independent are not vaid sources then the onus is on you to present arguments as to why they do not meet the relevant WP criteria. I suggest that an administrator will simply say the same thing. I would argue that it is clear that they may be regarded as mainstream, objective newspapers, each with a relatively large circulation. On the other hand no compelling sources have been presented to support the claim made previously in the lead that Martin was a 'hugely popular' broadcaster and a 'regular guest' on several shows. And this claim (which must amount to WP:OR in my view), will stay out until such sources can be presented and verified. The sources previously presented simply underscore that Martin was not ever a regular guest on the shows mentioned, in a proper sense of the term. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I am only debating the lead sentence of this article. Just look at the amount of times MM was on Coast to Coast AM the largest night time radio show on air according to talkers magazine. I am waiting to revert sometime today when the lock goes off!! --PHILO617 (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't advise that approach if I were you. Administrators won't unlock the article until they're satisfied that the dispute has been resolved. Clearly from what you say you are not intending to address the issues - simply to revert. I note that Coast to Coast is described as "a North American (U.S. and Canada) late-night radio talk show that deals with a variety of topics, but most frequently ones that relate to either the paranormal or conspiracy theories." Good to see that we have another aspect that reinforces the suggestion that Martin was an active promoter of conspiracy theories. But I doubt even that Martin's occasional forays onto Coast to Coast would be enough to claim him as a 'hugely popular' broadcaster. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Contaldo is a bully who has some grudge against Martin! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
This is pathetic. I can only assume this is an anonymous comment from PHILO617? Is this really a mature way to agree a way forward on this article? I couldn't care less about Malachi Martin. But I do care about the poor quality of this article. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I find it simply breathtaking that knowing how there has been a long dispute about the content of the lead article, an editor had nonetheless taken it upon themselves to make substantial changes to the lead without first discussing and building consensus for the amendments. Including such redundant phrases as "worked in the Vatican of John XXIII" - what does that add?! And jusityfing the changes by reference to 'bias'. If they think there is a issue of 'bias' then I would ask they explain themselves.Contaldo80 (talk) 08:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I thought the consensus was it was impossible to reach consensus (the failed mediation), so I thought I would take a shot. Yes "worked in the Vatican of John XXIII" wasn't good, but otherwise it was encyclopedic with no value judgments, certainly better than your biased version imho, 'obsession' is a value judgment why can't you understand that that is bias? Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 10:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
How dare you accuse me of bias. The statement "obsession with satanism" comes directly from the obituary in the LA Times, which is cited as the reference. I suggest you retract your unfounded and ill-informed accustion. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes I'm well aware that your "obsession with Satanism" comes from the LA Times, your bias also lies in not representing proportionally the views on MM in the lead paragraph as per WP:NPOV, it seems opinions on MM are fairly evenly divided, so if you have a negative perspective such as the LA Times 'obsession with Satanism' then that should be balanced with something pro MM in the lead paragraph. A much better approach is to have nothing pro or anti MM in the lead paragraph, just state what he did and what he is notable for, as in the current version. Have a look at the article for Richard Nixon a polarising figure himself, you could easily get reputable sources for strongly pro and strongly anti statements in the lead sentence/paragraph, but the better approach is to simply to have neither and as said before state what he is notable for. Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 09:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
In addition to WP:NPOV and as said before, the LA Times source 'obsession with Satanism' is a poor choice for a negative perspective, a meaningless value judgment, to choose that as the negative perspective is bias in itself.Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 22:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Full protection extended[edit]

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)

Thank you Favonian. I would certainly welcome dispute resolution, and would appreciate advice from other editors about a sensible way forward. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
The mediation request has now been officially rejected with a recommendation to take the matter to a noticeboard. Favonian (talk) 16:00, 21 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)

Thanks. I'm happy to have this brought to a dispute resolution noticeboard. What concerns me is that a perfectly fine source (the Los Angeles Times) is being removed again and again in preference for a lead that is not as well as referenced. This is not so much a dispute as a failure to address proper procedural rules for editing. I challenge the reference to WND that claims Martin was a 'close aide to the Vatican'. WND is known as an extreme right-wing website and cannot meet standards of neutrality/ verifiability. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Not a very strong argument about the WND source, as it is factually correct, you cannot dispute that, the source can easily be replaced by numerous others that detail Martin's period at the Vatican including the LA Times (your solitary source). London's Guardian newspaper is just as reputable a source as the LA Times. It is you that is not addressing procedural rules for editing. You are not engaging in real dialogue at all. Two months ago on the 6th October I explicitly raised concerns about your lead not meeting the requirements of WP:NPOV, you still haven't responded to that. You've already failed mediation with another editor and I see no evidence on this talk page that indicates you are capable of compromise. Take it to the dispute resolution noticeboard but first respond to my concerns raised on the 6th October. Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
If you say the same claim is made in the Guardian then I would rather we use that as the source. WND is not a mainstream or reputable source to be using. We can do better. In any case 'close aide' is very suggestive. How 'close' are we actually talking about? I do fear this is all aiming to give Martin an importance he may not have had in reality. These are genuine neutrality issues. Turning to your comments on 6 October, I'm afraid I don't agree with you. I don't believe that stating that Martin had an "obsession with satanism" is a negative statement. It seems fairly factual to me; and the source is a neutral and reputable one. Martin believed in the physical realiy of satan; was a proponent of demonic exorcism; and he wrote extensively and repeatedly on the issue, to the exclusion of everythine else. Which sounds very much to be like obsessive behaviour. I was disappointed that the previous editor I was disputing this with did not want to accept that we have to use good sources (not partisan ones). If you have an interest in improving the article then I suggest you also please demonstrate impartiality in terms of the subject. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
His obituary in The Independent newspaper states that Malachi Martin 'was a theological adviser to Cardinal Augustin Bea, the head of the Vatican's Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity.' I think close aide is an adequate description. Would you object to using the Independent newspaper as a source for his period at the Vatican? Obsession in mainstream use is considered a negative term and something abnormal. Using your apparent definition of the word anyone who writes repeatedly on a particular topic would therefore be 'obsessed', I don't think that's logical or reasonable. And why does a belief in Satan automatically qualify as an obsession, I see no difference with people believing in God and/or Satan, both are equally unprovable scientifically, is belief in God an obsession? But really your argument that Martin having an 'obsession with Satanism' is somehow not a negative perspective (because you believe it) is untenable. It is a negative perspective and that is why your lead does not meet the requirements of WP:NPOV. Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I fear you are being highly selective in your use of sources so you use parts that support a picture of Martin as a highly respected and inluential figure, and ignore those (the majority) which suggest he was of marginal influence and somewhat of a conspiracy theorist. I like the Independent - let's go with that! And we can then use information such as: "He went on to claim that Satan had taken hold of the Vatican and was even in a position to put his candidate on the papal throne (though he was convinced John Paul II was not a Satanist). "Lucifer, the biggest archangel, the leader of the revolt against God, has a big in with certain Vatican officials," he warned in 1997." Sounds like a continued obsession with satan - again backing up the LA Times. And; "Such lurid claims gained greater weight from Martin's carefully nurtured stature as a former Vatican insider who hinted at his initiation into the weightiest of the Vatican's secrets during his service in Rome from 1958 to 1964. He played on his reported closeness to Pope John." Also how about: "Martin was easily dismissed by the majority of the Church as an exponent of the "Catholic occult" (not helped by his claims to have seen Satan in his own apartment). But even his historical reminiscences from his time in Rome were regarded with mistrust." The lead needs to be rewritten to reflect this - that is indeed about ensuring balance. As for close aide - well to who? The lead says a "close aide to the Holy See" - what does that mean? The pope? Rather he was a theological adviser [there was more than one] to Cardinal Augustin Bea. This brought him into close contact with Pope John XXIII. Close contact that is all. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I've got no objection to having any of that material later in the article, it's just not appropriate for the lead, it's just not the way leads of controversial polarising figures are written in an encyclopedia/Wikipedia. I don't consider the close aide description to be of significance (it actually says 'close aide of the Holy See'... doesn't sound that important to me, an adviser/associate role), quite happy to have it replaced with theological adviser. It's important to note that Martin's notability to most people is as an author, he's not notable for his role at the Vatican and he's not notable for his controversies and that is what should be reflected in the lead. But what's the point of taking the effort to write this... you completely ignore counter arguments and seem very very driven, and it's just not that important to me, so I won't be contributing further. Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure we'll all be the poorer for your absence. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
We? After all that you've actually come up with an encyclopedic NPOV lead, good work. Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 04:48, 6 December 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

I think it is - just a really old one of when he was younger. By all means post another photo but make sure you have resolved copyright issues. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Illicit, but valid episcopal ordations[edit]

"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 (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)

It does, it's there under Communications and media: 'Martin became an American citizen in 1970.' see also Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Purpose of the photos in the article?[edit]

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. (talk) 10:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The third prophecy of the Lady of Fatima?[edit]

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)

two dispensations?[edit]

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. [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydney Rigdon (talkcontribs) 18:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 16:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 21:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Serious source ignored[edit]

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 (talk) 06:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)