Talk:The Book of Abramelin

Criticism section removed
I've removed the Criticism section because it is original research and speculation cobbled together by. A criticism section may only report the explicit criticism of published authors. It may not synthesize a criticism based on materials which weren't intended by their original authors as criticism, nor may it engage in historical speculation and arrive at the conclusions of a Wikipedia editor. All conclusions must be cited to an author whose works have been published by a reliable publisher. Skyerise (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Several sections are completely unreferenced
Not going to do this right away, but if these sections don't get citations, they will have to be deleted. Skyerise (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * @Skyerise (talk) It's worse most of what exists as sources in the article is simply wrong, like on very easily checkable stuff. First off, most of this article comes from Dehn's book directly, which I own in German, which is not an academic work at all. Just as an example this page – like Dehn's book – speaks of a "Codex Guelfibus" in Wolfenbüttel, no such codex exists, what does exist is the very famous Codex Guelferbytanus, which is shortened to "cod. guelf." but Dehn does not cite any part of this existing manuscript in his bibliography, he cites a fictional one. To the reliability of this work in his introduction to the second edition Dehn states that his lack of a critical apparatus was critiqued, so he added footnotes despite those offending his aesthetic sensibilities, these footnotes consist mostly of etymologies and references for "spells" which he believes to be bible verses, while those mostly concerned with manuscript variations are in English for Mather's edition and sometimes Hebrew for the Oxford one, for the text from this quoted non-existent codex they're all in modern high German as is the rest of the text, obviously the main problem here is that Dehn may suggest he translated all of this freely, but just in terms of acceptable academical standards unsourced quotes in a completely anachronistic language just don't inspire much confidence in this whole thing. I could go on but I hope you understand the problem with essentially just quoting from this work on Wikipedia. In addition to this, one file from the German article https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_von_Worms which was added to this article, and according to the German Wikipedia edit summaries uploaded on behalf of another user, by Hopsee from the supposed original 1725 manuscript and not either the 1853 or 1920 reprint, which is also referenced by Scholem in Bibliographia Kabbalistica, has some anachronistic features like the spelling "Köln" as Olaf Simons already pointed out in the file's Wikimedia description. Pari Sarcinator (talk) 03:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * @Pari Sarcinator. So fix it! Skyerise (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)