Talk:Trial by ordeal

message: The ordeal by water paragraph repeats claims ("dunking of witches")  that are the subject of an accuracy dispute in trial by drowning. I have no expertise to help the resolution but I have inserted the dubious marker to flag the need for:
a. A common resolution in both articles
b. Suitable cross links between the two articles
--Cje 19:45, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed 

message: Diane Duane's wizards, as seen and mentioned VERY often in the Young Wizards Series, must go through something called an "Ordeal" - which is basically a trial by fire (not necesarrily in the literal sense, heh) where they go up against the Lone Power (which Itself is supposed to be the inspiration behind most of the, if you will, Boss Monsters of mythology, as well as being equated with Satan/Lucifer - It is sometimes greeted in the books as "Fair and Fallen", and is known for its devious tactics - and also the inspiration for many of the Native American Trickster gods, since It too invented death and entropy and consistently tricks peoples and worlds into accepting it); this is one of the first things that happens after a wizard takes his or her Oath and is given powers by the Powers That Be. If they pass the test and defeat the Lone Power, they are officially considered a wizard. If they don't, they either die (as part of the consequences of failing to defeat the Lone Power in whatever It was doing; it's noted at one point in the series that many of the missing persons cases in the world are actually wizards disappearing when they fail their Ordeal), or apparently would lose their newly-given powers and all memory of their time as a wizard (or at least, this is suggested in Deep Wizardry; when Nita considers backing out of what she's agreed to do, she's told, as I recall, that there would be dire consequences but that the Powers aren't generally heartless and would probably allow her to escape and therefore live - but not as a wizard. This wasn't her Ordeal, but other than it being a wizard's first - and therefore inherently most frightening - mission, there seems to usually be relatively little to distinguish the Ordeal from a normal mission undertaken on behalf of the Powers. I say "usually" because another wizard in the sixth book had a rather weird one, but it seems to be the exception rather than the rule, given the circumstances in that book). In fact, the whole first book (So You Want To Be A Wizard) revolves around one such Ordeal, which is by its very nature life-threatening; the fact that it's said to be a test of the wizards' mettle and is given special status in the series (the notes in the wizarding directories always mention status, in other words, whether a wizard is on a mission, or available... and it ALWAYS mentions if the wizard is "on Ordeal") would sort of seem to connect to the subject of this article, or else something very similar (the fact that our own internal links make "trial by fire" a disambig that links right back to here at the top lend even further credence; Duane is well-read and the series largely involves a theme or themes of the power and evolution and love of languages - you have to love language in order to be a wizard in her books, because they use the mystical Speech to alter the universe - so it's not inconcievable that the metaphorical trial by fire they undergo is called an Ordeal on purpose).
I say all of this because I think it might be good to change the "parodies" section to "Cultural references" or some similar title, and include this tidbit (though made more concise, of course :P) in there alongside the Monty Python reference. The only reason I'd like to see the title "Parodies" changed is that the "Ordeal" of Duane's wizards seems obviously connected, but it's treated seriously instead of as a joke. The Monty Python mention is excellent, but it's the only parody mentioned and the only parody I can think of. Unless people want to add a Cultural references section and made "Parodies" a subsection of that? 
Or, do you disagree that Duane's wizard stories have elements taken from something like this? Certainly the NAME seems to have a common origin, though I can't be positive it isn't a coincidence. That's the only reason I have yet to add this; because I don't want to add OR to it. Hell, Duane edits on Wikipedia herself- maybe we could ask her if the connection is intentional or not? What do you guys think? Runa27 22:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Young Wizards Series

message: There appears to be an error in the text here: "This ordeal was proscribed by Charlemagne in 779 and again in 806. On the other hand, a decree of Lothar I, recorded in 876, rules its abolition so as to avoid mockery of Christ."
How is Charlemagnes proscription "on the other hand" to Lothar's abolition?  To proscribe and abolish are fundamentally the same.
Was it intended to say that Charlemagne "prescribed" the ordeal of the cross?  He supported it?  I suspect so, but don't have any background knowledge.  In any case, the text must be changed one way or another. zadignose (talk) 09:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Proscribed?" 

message: Prof. Peter T. Leeson, of the university of Chicago, released a paper on the statistical validity of ordeal. Maybe it should be mentioned in this article. 
here's a link to it: http://www.peterleeson.com/Ordeals.pdf Crackettt (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  academic paper on the validity of ordeals 

message: "Therefore, the theory goes, church and judicial authorities would routinely rig ordeals so that the participants—presumably innocent—could pass them. If this theory is correct, medieval superstition was actually a useful motivating force for justice."   I find this highly unlikely, and whitewashing the past in favor of governing bodies, of what was truly nothing short of a barbaric and superstitious practice of man against fellow man under the guise of the constructs of the church and state, to impose their absolute tyranical rule and will.  All those witches and heretics who were burned at the stake, and aristocrats who were beheaded, were definitely guilty because god did not intervene on the behalf to stop heal them of the wounds of torture.   Leeson in effect asserts...  don't worry, the Church rigged the burnings alive and the beheadings... they weren't actually burned alive or beheaded, splayed on the rack or impaled in iron maidens, or hit with the thumbscrews, or scaled with molten metal or fire, it was just a trick with mirrors.  These torture devices throughout Europe were not just for display only, they were working equipment.  A burnt crispy body or behead head as end effect is not a miraculous escape from an ordeal.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.11.248 (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counter argument to Peter Leeson assertion

message: "According to a theory put forward by Peter Leeson, trial by ordeal was surprisingly effective at sorting the guilty from the innocent.   Because defendants were believers, only the truly innocent would choose to endure a trial; guilty defendants would confess or settle cases instead." 
I find Peter Lessons argument particularly onerous, because it is based on a fallacy, that (all) defendants were believers; that that defendants had no common experience in real life; that they were oblivious to real world previous experience that they can and will be injured irregardless of their faith or belief; and their own real world experience of personally never witnessing any such fairy tale miracles in their own life was not a factor in them placing no such faith in such a thing to rescue them from an accidental or intentional physical act of violence, irregardless of what the clergy (their accusers) told them.  
I would counter argue that even the lowliest house wife, farm hand, or town commoner in Medieval Europe would know from daily experience, that irregardless of your belief in anything, if you stick your hand in a boiling cauldron of water, it is going to get scalded; if you walk across hot coals, your feet will get burn; and if... (substitute your ordeal here, damage to yourself will occur).  A house wife would know, that spilled boiling water would scald.   A common blacksmith would know, that when poked with a hot poker he would get burned badly, irregardless of any guilt or innocence of anything at all.  These things would a common accident and occupational hazard and danger during house-wifing, black smithing, and daily life.
I assert contrary to his argument, that Trial by Ordeal caused many false convictions through use of terror.  Knowing fully well what would happen to them by being subjected to a blatant act of violence against them, they would chose to confess to an unknown punishment out of fear of the known outcome of a threat of grave bodily harm.  If you fall out of a tree, you get hurt; if you get stabbed by a red hot stick, you get burned; if you get splashed by boiling hot water, you get scalded.  Guilt and any belief in a deity or that such entity might intervene has nothing to do with it.  The school of hard knocks of rough daily life in medieval Europe would of schooled them otherwise, as it does every kid growing up today.
Indeed, that his argument could be used today, to reinstate Trial by Ordeal, in countries where the leadership is permeated by fundamentalist religious beliefs, and that his arguments could be used effectively against those who are naive or could not defend themselves verbally, would be an assault upon human liberty of the grossest order.
I question why his argument should be introduced in the article at such an early point (introductory section), and that they should be moved down further in the article, and balanced by, if not mine, more rational counter arguments.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.11.248 (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peter Leesons conjectures are interesting, but they also make broad assumptions, and as such are rubbish 

message: How could a practice in Sierra Leone influence a practice in Europe, when these societies weren't even aware of each other?  Do tell!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.50.30 (talk) 07:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The article just says that the practice has roots going back to animistic societies, and Sierra Leone is offered as an example of a society which engaged in that practice.  At no point does it say that Sierra Leone influenced Europe.  Try actually assuming that the writers of articles (or anything you read) are not dumbasses.  Ian.thomson (talk) 08:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sierra Leone 

message: At present inquisition in 'replaced by compurgation, later by inquisition' links to The (Spanish) Inquisition.  Surely, in legal history, it simply means trial on the basis of evidence. Clarification would be useful. Norvo (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  ' ... by inquisition' 

message: I removed a claim that ordeal by water sometimes meant that if you floated you were innocent, rather than the other way round, along with a reference to bishop Quirinius, who was reported to be miraculously saved from sinking. The incident was not an example of ordeal by water; the bishop was already found guilty and the miracle unexpected. There is no evidence of the custom of proving innocence by a miracle - a custom that no sane people would accept. --Jonund (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bishop Quirinius and miracles as evidence of innocence 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Trial by ordeal. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150429053347/http://www.stupormundi.it/Houben1.htm to http://www.stupormundi.it/Houben1.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: excerpt 17 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russkaya_Pravda
https://www.schroders.com/en/uk/the-value-perspective/blog/all-blogs/hot-iron-trial-by-ordeal/
JCJC777 (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: should include trial by iron?

message: Does anyone else have a slight issue with how the opening is worded? It’s ancient, but was used as ‘recently’ as medieval times? Can we state “…originally used in…” instead? Just a nitpick. Maybe it’s appropriately-worded. MWFwiki (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  “Ancient”