# Talk:Paisley witches

Would there be any objections to renaming this article Paisley witches, with a redirect from Bargarron witches? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Why? The trial (and execution) took place at Paisley, but the victim and the "witches" came from Bargarran, which in the 20th century was subsumed by Erskine New Town. "Spliting hairs", it's the "Bargarran (or Erskine) witches" or the "Paisley witch trials". :-) Pyrotec (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Because there were other witch trials in Paisley besides this one, in 1661 for instance, and it would be consistent with Pendle witches, or Samlesbury witches. To split hairs with you, not all of the "witches" came from Bargarran—John Reid and the Lindsay brothers didn't. I wouldn't object to a rename to Bargarron witches though, but as it stands this article's title implies that it should cover every witch trial in Paisley, not just the one trial of 1697. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
The name could also be Paisley witch trials (1697). It should be named after the place were the witch trial took place, unless it is commonly known in history as Paisley witches. Just a suggestion. --Aciram (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I was watching Countryfile tonight and the Pendle witches were mentioned. So in summary it appears there is no good reason for renaming the article Paisley witches, merely "wikimadness" - consistency without reason. Its not clear from your answer whether you were intending to expand the article to include the 1661, so I suppose that is reason enough. However, I do like the suggestion of the name Paisley witch trials (1697), particularly if you don't intend to add the 1661 trials (I didn't know about them, thanks for highlighting them). Pyrotec (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
No, I have no intention of expanding the article to include the 1661 trial, or any others. Hence my desire for a rename. It isn't about "wikimadness", it's about the most common title given to this group of unfortunate people. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
The article isn't just about the trial, it's about the people involved, the background to their story, what happened after the trial, and a modern interpretation of events, which is why I'm suggesting a rename to Paisley witches. If it was simply an account of the trial, then I'd say the present title needs to be changed to Paisley witch trials (1697), but it isn't. Trying to judge the most common name from google is difficult, because entering "paisley witch trials" brings up loads of mirrors of this article, but looking at just at the number of pages google considers to be dissimilar it appears that Paisley witches is favoured over Paisley witch trials by about 900 to 390. The present title is incorrect in any event, as there were several witch trials in Paisley, and this article is only about one of them, albeit the most famous of them. There wasn't even really a trial anyway, the case was heard before a commission set up by the Scottish Privy Council. Some have described it as a kangaroo court. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Sylvia Clark uses the words "a bad case of witch hunting", they follow comments on the Scottish Church and the Paisley Minister, a Mr Blackwood, is described therein as a witch hunter. OK, now I understand the reasons, I can accept the suggested change(s). I might even be able to find a 20-year-ish picture of the 1980s horseshoe - I certainly looked at it just after it was laid at the junction, but that means "loft-hunting" through boxes and boxes of slides. Pyrotec (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
It was a pretty poor show really; calling it a "trial" is a mockery really. On the subject of the horseshoe, I'm puzzled by the change you made earlier today. Was the original stolen in the 1970s, then replaced in the 80s, and then the replacement replaced by the new tondo? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
There was no horseshoe there in April 1979 when I moved into the "Street", but I remember a new horseshoe being built-into a "mini-roundabout" shortly after a series of traffic accidents at those traffic lights (a 4-way junction); and there were several newspaper articles written on the subject at the time (Paisley Gazzette). I place that event sometime between 1979 and 1987: Sylvia Clark's book was published in 1988, and so was probably written in 1987 and she mentions its reinstatement in the book. If I can find my slide, it is likely to be "dated". I meet her quite a few times in the 1980s as she was a leading light in various local history societies and taught at Paisley College (now Paisley University). The site is here [[1]] and the horseshoe was placed in the 1980s at the junction of Maxwellton Street / B7050 & George Street. The horseshoe was probably first lost when George Street was made into a dual carriage way in the early 1970s(?). Maxwellton Street north of George Street was subsequently (post 1991) converted into a dual carriageway and extended beyond Broomlands Street (as part of a new north-south "distributor road" to allow pedestrianisation of the High Street). That area of grass behind the tennement blocks at the northern end of Maxwellton Street, Queen Street and Broomlands Street is shown on maps as "Gallow Green" - well what remains of it. The relevant roads, i.e. Great George Street, Maxwellton Street and New Sand Holes (some roads have been slightly renamed) are shown on an 1781 plan of Paisley, so the roads, but not necessarily the building date from pre-1781. The new B7050 was, I think, officially opened in 2000, the new tondo, I suspect, is probably the "winding up" of the roadworks. Pyrotec (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Paisley witches/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: none found
Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


### Checking against GA criteria
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Prose good, complies sufficiently with MoS
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
References check, I assume good faith for off-line sources, no obvious OR
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Sufficient detail without unnecessary trivia
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Short and sweet, I find that this complies with the criteria, so am happy to list it. This has been a brief review but sufficient to check the criteria. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)