Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Massachusetts/Salem Witch Trials Task Force

message: Today I removed the tag stating that there is "Nobody in Here Anymore".
I show up Here about once a month, and I still use wikipedia and have been really very unhappy about what is occuring to our articles.
There is a group of Revisionists annonymously stripping info from our articles. 
I find this offensive, and believe it is VANDALISM !
If you're changing an article at least sign your changes. That will allow a greater chance for the truth to become a part of this through intellectual discussion. Here we have been the victim of sockpuppets.
Trying to bury the witchcraft trials under the sign of the cross and using anonymous tags to do it is just a continuation of what occured in 1692.
John5Russell3Finley (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a question regarding whether the inforamtion removed is from the article itself, or from the talk page. Removal of verifiable information from an article is vandalism, removal of the banner of a group which has been counted as inactive is not. For a group to be functional, it is generally required that the group demonstrate some degree of activity on its project page or talk page. Seemingly, this group has had very little activity of late. Under such circumstances, it is considered reasonable to remove the banner of the inactive group, particularly if another, more active, group covers the same subject matter. One person who edits about once a month is not grounds to say that a group is active. Several groups have been "merged" into more active projects on this basis, particularly if the banner of the other group includes a link to the inactive group. Personally, I have not seen that this group has sufficient activity to indicate that it is active as a group, and this subject is honestly small enough and sufficiently clearly related to another group, WP:CALVINISM, considering the people involved were all Calvinists and that Calvinism was clearly involved, that it makes some sense to reduce the banner clutter. Of course, if a given topic either is sufficiently unique or large enough for a separate "bookkeeping" project to assist in keeping track of those articles, then in general that can accomplished through the use of the single relevant banner, if it is available. Considering that this project has shown remarkably little activity, including no responses to comments posted here recently, barring this one, including my own proposal above, I personally have to consider whether the group demonstrates sufficient activity to really qualify as an active group, and such activity is the primary factor involved. John Carter (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this is a task force, it might be well if it had a WikiProject to belong to, and WP:Calvinism would seem to be a good candidate. Rich Farmbrough, 19:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Undo of "Dormant" Tag

message: Today I began Clean Up work on the Task Force Page.
I removed some stuff that looked like it might be intended to cause trouble.
Recently this task force has been criticised for innaction.
So I took the title coordinator because the position was vacant, and I do not really wish to replace anyone, Yet.
However, my computer skills date from the days of basic 4.1, and although I have been a contributor since 2001, I have never been able to keep up with all the constant changes in the way things get done.
With the help of the other members we should at least be able to stem the decline.
We need skilled members to take an interest here.
Not All the requested articles have been written yet.
Vandalism from Sock Puppets has been more than I can handle, without more help.
I hope that together we can fix things without offending people so much that we again have troubles here.
Please be aware that I often do not spend much time on the computer.
In the past I tended to check in here about once every month, and if someone posted to my talk page I tended respond within a week or sometimes longer. I will make an effort to improve on this, however it is possible that if you post something here I may not post a reply on the same day.  John5Russell3Finley (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A few ideas. The Star Wars project regularly makes a roll call to determine if people are active, which assists in knowing who is still even irregularly active, as opposed to completely retired. Such knowledge might be helpful here. There is also a recent changes function which can be set up to display the most recent changes to all articles related to this topic, which might be useful in dealing with vandalism. It could be set up on the project page for greater ease of access. And, personally, I really think starting articles about the various works which have been written about this subject would be very useful. Any work which has had multiple reviews or other discussion outside of itself could potentially have a separate article, which could go into more elaborate detail regarding the theories expounded therein. I know JSTOR has several reviews on books related to this subject, hundreds of them. Other sources would, presumably, have more reviews. John Carter (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Changes 

message: We need people to work on this area.
What I have so far for the revision of the "template" ? is this:
Articles Needing Attention
Requested articles 
Bartholomew Gendey  • Sarah Bishop (Salem) • Mary Black (Salem) • John DeRich • Lydia Dustin (Salem) • Mary English (Salem) • Phillip English (Salem)  • Thomas Farrar, Sr.  • Elizabeth Hart (Salem) • William Hobbs (Salem) • John Indian • Margaret Jacobs (Salem) • Mary Lacey Jr. • Mary Lacey Sr. • Sarah Morey • Benjamin Proctor• John Proctor, III • Sarah Proctor • William Proctor (Salem)   • Margaret Scott (Salem Trials) 
Expansion or Cleanup needed 
A Break with Charity • George Burroughs • Giles Corey • Martha Corey • Jonathan Corwin • Thomas Danforth • Rebecca Eames •Ann Foster • Dorcas Good • Sarah Good • John Hale • John Hathorne • Mercy Lewis •  Rebecca Nurse • Betty Parris • Samuel Parris • Elizabeth Proctor •  John Proctor • Ann Putnam, Jr. • Wilmot Redd • Nathaniel Saltonstall • Samuel Sewall • Roger Toothaker •  Mary Walcott • Mary Warren • John Willard  •  Samuel Willard • Abigail Williams • The Witch House•  1692 •  The Crucible (1957 film) • The Crucible (1996 film) •  Tituba •  William Stoughton 
I'm inclined to pay less attention to the Clean up articles until after we finnish adding the Requested articles. 
Perhaps the Cleanup articles and the Expansion needed articles could be combined ?
Until I get all of the articles looked at and rated I will keep a temporary version of the list here. Partly this is due to the way the one on the page is structured. 
I think this one could be easier to edit while working on the articles. My plan is to occasionally replace the one on the page with the current form of this one, but I won't do that until I have examined all of the articles in the list.
John5Russell3Finley (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs Attention Section

message: Does Anyone have any ideas on this ?
I don't get the point to having a redirect from an empty article.
I think we need to remove the redirect and add some biographical info.
I would support this even if it only makes it a stub.
John5Russell3Finley (talk) 02:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It provides a better link for the disambiguation page that is probably at Margaret Scott.  Creating stubs has pros and cons. Rich Farmbrough, 19:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Margaret Scott (Salem)

message: I suggest that for purposes of identification of Early New England residents (viz.: especially those listed in the reconstructed New England Vital Records Book Series) that we try as much as possible to avoid using the designation Jr. and other numerical suffixes unless actually citing the source from which we derive it at each use of it for the individual. There have been several misuses that have lead to unnecessary arguments and much confusion. John5Russell3Finley (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: use of numerical suffixes for identification

message: I have initiated a Good Article reassessment of Salem witch trials. I have reviewed it and placed the article on hold awaiting any improvements. If there has not been any response or significant improvement within a reasonable amount of time, it will be delisted. PrincessofLlyr royal court 21:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Salem witch trials]] reassessment 

message: It seems like a number of the articles covered by this taskforce are not notable. Take John Alden (sailor) as an example: I see someone who was involved in a church, accused of a crime and fled and a sailor. Where is the notability? Does it pass WP:GNG?--TM 17:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The United States Constitution's establishment clause is one HUGE but certainly not the only reason that the history and the events and persons involved therein are notable. These events and persons resulted in the form of government that the UN is currently trying to force upon the world. Any analysis of the current situation between the US and the Moslem nations, Califate, etal. groups trying to preserve a religious basis for morality is easier when the facts about one of the most fundamental and deeply formative incidents in the history of the United States of America are fully understood. Read the Federalist Papers ... etal. literature justifying our refusal to allow for a state religion in the US. Not having the total package of facts is the kind of thing that allows us to consider putting ourselves back under some form of tyrany. John5Russell3Finley (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. What you just said has nothing to do with this. I am not saying that the Salem Witch Trials are not notable, I am saying that a number of the sub-articles on people are not notable. If I don't get another response, I will take some of the least notable articles to AfD for a wider opinion.--TM 18:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Notability has to be demonstrated as per WP:N, which is I believe what Namiba is referring to. The Federalist Papers and other documents are completely irrelevant to this matter. John Carter (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

text: I honestly cannot see how the above comment, for all its length, even remotely addresses the matter of the subject's notability as per our guidelines of WP:N. There is always the option of creating a list of people involved in the Salem Witch Trials which could include individual sections on the persons involved, in a way similar to Martyrs of Córdoba. If the articles cannot be developed to a sufficient length to merit individual articles, making such a single page, with redirects from the merged pages, always remains an option. John Carter (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: List of people of the Salem Witch Trials exists, but it a list with few details.--TM 23:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Any individual is always free to propose merger of articles, or propose deletion with the intent to merge content, or anything else they feel is reasonable given the existing circumstances. John Carter (talk) 00:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That is obviously true. I posted the list to show that something already exists, but I don't see a strong way to merge the contents onto that particular list. Other ideas? Perhaps List of minor people of the Salem Witch Trials?--TM 01:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I myself have serious reservations about the existing list, as it is wildly unfocused in my opinion. I hate to say this, but virtually everyone alive in Salem at the time could, potentially, probably be included in that list as it now exists. I would think that it could easily be broken up into separate, more managable lists, each with a bit clearer focus, and that a List of individuals accused at the Salem Witch Trials is probably one of the more immediately obvious ones. John Carter (talk) 15:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems like a very reasonable solution. Lets proceed with that if no others comment in the next few days.--TM 16:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability? 

message: A quote from a 130-year-old footnote has been questioned for accuracy by an anonymous editor at Talk:Ann Glover#List of persons executed for witchcraft. I have removed the quote from that article as it seemingly contradicts many other reliable sources, however it also can be found on several other New England witch-hunting articles:
* Ann Hibbins
* Alse Young
* Margaret Jones (Puritan midwife)
* Salem witchcraft trials
Perhaps a better source can be found? Or maybe it should simply be removed? —Mrwojo (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked into this a bit further. On p. 137 of the quoted book the author describes the Mary Parsons case in more detail. It seems like describing her as being "executed for witchcraft" is imprecise, where the undisputed claim could be stated as "accused of witchcraft and sentenced to hang for murder". —Mrwojo (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote appearing on multiple pages questioned for accuracy 

message: I propose that this :
"Earlier executions for witchcraft in New England Historian Clarence F. Jewett included a list of other people executed in New England in The Memorial History of Boston: Including Suffolk County, Massachusetts 1630–1880 (Ticknor and Company, 1881). He wrote,
The following is the list of the 12 persons who were executed for witchcraft in New England before 1692, when 24 other persons were executed at Salem, whose names are well known. It is possible that the list is not complete ; but I have included all of which I have any knowledge, and with such details as to names and dates as could be ascertained : — 1647, — "Woman of Windsor," Connecticut (name unknown)[later identified as Alice Young], at Hartford. 1648, — Margaret Jones, of Charlestown, at Boston. 1648,— Mary Johnson, at Hartford. 1650? — Henry Lake's wife, of Dorchester. 1650?—Mrs. Kendall, of Cambridge. 1651, — Mary Parsons, of Springfield, at Boston. 1651, — Goodwife Bassett, at Fairfield, Conn. 1653,—Goodwife Knap, at Hartford. 1656, — Ann Hibbins, at Boston. 1662, — Goodman Greensmith, at Hartford. 1662,— Goodwife Greensmith, at Hartford. 1688,— Goody Glover, at Boston."[6]"
should be removed or clarified.
The reason that this entry should be removed or clarified is that it contains false information: "— Mary Parsons, of Springfield, at Boston. 1651," This information is false.There were two Mary parsons of Springfield who were accused of being witches, they were Mary Bliss who married Joseph Parsons, and Mary Lewis who married Hugh Parsons. Both women were accused and acquitted of witchcraft. Mary (Lewis) Parsons however still faced the charge of murdering her child and would have been executed but died in prison before it could be carried out. No one named Mary Parsons was ever executed for witchcraft. For the above mentioned reasons this entry should be removed or changed, since it is spreads false information. - Ken  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.80.105.174 (talk) 03:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove or clarify section on earlier executions 

message: I have recently started discussion about possibly changing both the scope of this particularly project and the use of a separate talk page for it here and here. Input from any interested editors is very welcome and encouraged, particularly from any editors who believe that perhaps WikiProject Massachusetts might be a "better" alternative. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I find your ongoing inability to act in accord with [{WP:AGF]] and other guidelines disturbing. First, I have never thought that this group should be about the Christian religion, and have never said as much. The purpose of a group is to bring the greatest number of editors possible to the purpose of development of the material. This group has been, basically, inactive. There are a number of reference and other books about the subject, and, whether you as an individual choose to believe it or not, basically all those involved were Christians. No project takes a clear POV position, although you seem to be incapable of understanding that. And, by the way, I realize you may be an infrequent editor, but it is customary to separate out your own comments to prevent run-on comments such as your own comment above. John Carter (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading the bickering between you 2 over the years had me cracking up!!! 35 articles? Is this a taskforce or a category? – Lionel (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question actually. As a general principle for wikipedia, we want about 100 articles for a task force/work group. This group is still rather short of that. While there are rare cases, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Kylie Minogue, which apparently have sufficient activity to make such reasonable, I am not sure that the one GA produced by this group is indicative of anywhere near the same level of interest. That is one of the primary reasons that I have proposed the group's scope be expanded to cover "western witchcraft", or the allegations of witchcraft in the Western, Christian, world, as indicated in the material I linked to initially. As indicated there, I think a lot of those related articles are relevant to this topic as well, and the expanded scope might help draw a bit more attention of a few more editors to this topic. John Carter (talk) 21:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Expanding the scope makes a lot of sense. But will you-know-who go along? Is there a way to expand the scope without him knowing? (Just kidding) Correct me if I'm wrong, but the SWT victims were not witches, yet you-know-who is an advocate of the dark arts. Seems he would be more interested in bona fide witches. – Lionel (talk) 04:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, there do seem to be long-term issues of POV regarding at least one editor who seems uniquely interested in this topic. Also, I should note that in the Christianity and Military History project, coordinators are elected, not self-appointed. It occurs to me, that, possibly, individuals who might be interested in working on the topic might not be interested in perhaps working with, well, certain editors. I know that I myself would likely have added my name as a member were it not for the presence of one other editor. John Carter (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed changes to project scope and talk page 

message: ====Sarah Bishop wife of Edward 3====
The following is an extract of what was at an earlier date a part of the article on Edward Bishop 3.
I would like to suggest we begin a stub on Sarah Bishop based on this and am putting this here because we had an edit war about it and I would like not to have an edit war about it this time.
Edward Jr. and his wife Sarah (not to be confused with her step-mother, Sarah Averill Wildes who was also accused of witchcraft and  h[anged]), were sent to the Boston prison. Their property was confiscated but was redeemed by their son Samuel for ten pounds. Edward Jr. and Sarah were able to escape from prison after nine months.[4] Although they initially returned to Salem after the hysteria had subsided, they eventually moved to Rehoboth, Massachusetts where Edward Jr. ran an inn until his death in 1711. Edward III eventually married Susannah Putnam, a relative of the Putnams who were among the accusers at the Salem Witchcraft trials. The Source for the footnote is stated as Upham v 2 p 136 (which I have yet to check).
Further ref: Boyer Paul, Stephen Nissenbaum, Account of Edward Bishop--Cases of Edward and Sarah Bishop: The Salem Witchcraft Papers: Verbatim Transcripts of the Legal Documents of the Salem Witchcraft Outbreak of 1692, Benjamin Ray, The University of Virginia, appears to be (in 2008) an  online book. (also not checked yet).
John5Russell3Finley (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Building blocks for possible articles:  

message: The following is an extract of what was at an earlier date a part of the article on Edward Bishop 3.
I would like to suggest we begin a stub on Sarah Bishop based on this and am putting this here because we had an edit war about it and I would like not to have an edit war about it this time.
Edward Jr. and his wife Sarah (not to be confused with her step-mother, Sarah Averill Wildes who was also accused of witchcraft and  h[anged]), were sent to the Boston prison. Their property was confiscated but was redeemed by their son Samuel for ten pounds. Edward Jr. and Sarah were able to escape from prison after nine months.[4] Although they initially returned to Salem after the hysteria had subsided, they eventually moved to Rehoboth, Massachusetts where Edward Jr. ran an inn until his death in 1711. Edward III eventually married Susannah Putnam, a relative of the Putnams who were among the accusers at the Salem Witchcraft trials. The Source for the footnote is stated as Upham v 2 p 136 (which I have yet to check).
Further ref: Boyer Paul, Stephen Nissenbaum, Account of Edward Bishop--Cases of Edward and Sarah Bishop: The Salem Witchcraft Papers: Verbatim Transcripts of the Legal Documents of the Salem Witchcraft Outbreak of 1692, Benjamin Ray, The University of Virginia, appears to be (in 2008) an  online book. (also not checked yet).
John5Russell3Finley (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Sarah Bishop wife of Edward 3

message: This was once a stub but disapeared some time ago and would need losts of expanding before it could reapear as an article:
Martha Carrier 
Accused during Salem witch trials
"Martha Carrier was indicted for bewitching certain persons, according to the form usual in such cases, pleading not guilty to her indictments.", quote from The Trial of Martha Carrier by Cotton Mather.
Carrier was one of the few people who were accused and hanged for being or accused being a witch during the 1692 Salem witch trials.
Carrier was a mother to several children, who frankly and fully confessed to being witches themselves due to only their mother made them so.
Please add more info John5Russell3Finley (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Martha Carrier

message: Greetings, there is a discussion regarding removal of the logic used to populate Automatically assessed article categories from Template:WikiProject United States. Most of the categories (over 220 Wikipedia wide) were deleted in February 2013 because they were empty. These categories were previously populated by a bot that hasn't run since 2011 and the categories aren't used. Removal of this uneeded/unused logic will greatly reduce the size and complexity of the WikiProject United States template. Any comments or questions are encouraged here. Kumioko (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Lest there is any confusion for people who don't speak the same language, the words "logic used to populate Automatically assessed article categories" refer to the feature that was supposed to allow this WikiProject's template to "inherit" class and importance ratings from other WikiProjects. Kumioko says that there are no longer any bots performing the function that formerly copied those ratings. --Orlady (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion to remove the Automatically assessed logic from the WikiProject United States template

message: Hi,
I am wondering if there's any current drafts of the numerous articles that still need to be created. I started a small one for Philip English in my sandbox; I'd like to get Mary done as well, and there are still quite a lot of people left who need biographies. Is there anywhere to keep drafts for collaboration on improving them to a good enough status to be posted as articles? La Ovo (talk) 04:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: you may be able to add a section to the taskforce page John5Russell3Finley (talk) 12:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any current drafts?