Talk:Edward Bishop (Salem witch trials)

message: Edward Bishop is perhaps titleable as Edward Bishop Jr, since his father's name was also Edward. The earliest sources I read had a bit of confusion as to which of the 3 Edward Bishops (there were perhaps 4 living in Salem MA in the mid to late 1600s), father son or grandson, was the husband of Bridget Oliver Bishop. The title here is a compromise resulting from me not having much skill with the wikipedia format, me trying to disambiguate from Edward Stanley Bishop who has somehow managed to preempt the name, and me not being too sure whether there were one or more Edward Bishops in line before him in the family who also had a claim to use the name. If somebody has more skill here with the disambiguation format, then I am happy to see them make an improvement in the Edward Bishop confusion and naming of this article.John5Russell3Finley 00:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article needs cleanup, first and foremost needing a precise and concise (it rhymes I know) lead. --Imaginationac (Talk | Edits | Email) 19:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: I guess it's still a bit of a mess, however I added 2 categories.
I have tried to keep infomation that was stated as factual even when I had reservations about it's truth. I think some of it
may be is just speculation, and have tried to identify such and link it to a probable source (viz. Greene's Article in TAG).
 
Using a sockpuppet to do editing is really Awfully bad practice, and reeked of something akin to vandalism. Please try to remain with wikipedia if you add to this article, it leads to better flow of ideas when you register as a contributor. 
If anyone makes serious changes here they ought to link to reputable sources. 
My research leads me to suspect that The American Genealogist Article ". Mrs. Bridget Playfer Wasselbe Oliver Bishop, widow of Samuel Wasselbe and Thomas Oliver, wife of Edward Bishop: TAG 57(1981 ):1 29-38, 64(1989): 207 (D. L. Greene and R. C. Anderson)" could be linkable on line if one is a member of that publisher.
I have not yet read the Greene article myself, so I have limited my changes.
TAG has not always had a good reputation.
In the 1970s there was a bit of a fuss about one article where parts of it were fabricated, so I am inclined to remember that they were at one time not known for checking the facts and sources in their articles. 1981 is within the conventionally suspect time-frame but I have not deleated the info linked to the TAG article in the interest of furthering a discussion of this topic.
I have reservations about the stuff in here about Edward Bishop III, and about Edward Besop's statement.
John5Russell3Finley (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Revisions 

message: The American Genealogist (#57) containing the above mentioned article: had some typos, and didn't have all of the expected info. This article refuses to find who was the father of Edward Bishop. There were several men of the right age and surname listed in Salem MA Vital Records. It is to some degree an attempt to bash Upham's scheme of 4 Edward Bishops all related: father son grandson greatgrandson which (given that Briget Oliver Bishop's decendants continued to live in that community and that one of them was a local school teacher into the early 19th Century: which could imply that the correct info actually was available to Upham) still seems likely as not possibly the truth.
The analysis of the sufix Jr. was poor. The analysis of the date of Edward Bishop's marriage to Bridget Oliver: after having found the exact month it goes on to ignore it throughout the rest of the article, which is then placed aproximately 7 years later. John5Russell3Finley (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  tag 57 

message: My thought here is that this section makes the most sense as a list of "facts". In that form each item has its own little space to itself. This allows the reader to examine each item on its own, and to combine them in their head or to refuse to accept an individual item, and accept any or all of the other items quickly and with less influence of any of the other items than would occur in any other format.John5Russell3Finley (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Conventionally accepted as likely factual