Talk:Witch trial (disambiguation)

message: I'm not convinced this should be merged with witch-hunt. I think this should be renamed Great European Witch-hunts or something similar, and then relevant material from witch-hunt merged in along with all of Burning Times. But witch-hunt should be left as a more general term, rather than referring to a particular period in history as this does. —Ashley Y 06:20, 2004 Jul 13 (UTC)
This paragraph should be fact-checked:
:It should be noted that according to Roman Law, now Civil Law (based on the rights of people), all persons are considered innocent until the contrary is proved, but according to Canon Law (based on the "sinful" nature of people) all persons are considered guilty until their innocence is proved.
Not sure about either half of the claim, and not very NPOV to me.—Henry Troup 13:25, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old talk 

message: Moved from Wikipedia:Duplicate articles.
*Witch trial into witch-hunt. -Sean Curtin 05:31, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger discussion

message: The article states:
:If the condemned was pregnant her belly was opened with a knife, the foetus extracted and trod under foot (because "it was the offspring of a demon with the woman, or consecrated to the Devil by the witch"), and then she was killed.
This statement is presented as being absolutely true, but I'm almost positive one woman condemned to die during the Salem witch trials escaped death because she was pregant. Also quotation marks are used but no hint is given to where the quote actualy comes from. Nor is the assertion sourced at all.--198.93.113.49 18:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pregnancy

message: This is one of the worst articles on Wikipedia. I pointed out to problems above, bu there are many more. In general it reads like it was written by someone with limited knowledge of the subject writing from memory and occassionally lapsing into POV asides.--198.93.113.49 18:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  There is POV all over it.  The facts it has are suspect.  (How can anyone estimate the total number of victims of witch trials?  We're talking about over all of Europe for 500 years.  Any estimate would be absurd to the point of absolutely not being anything but misleading.)  There are no citations.  There is a "further reading," but no indication of the validity and neutrality of these sources.  Given the prevalence of contemporary "witches" in the form of neo-paganism, the likelihood of entirely anti-historical allegations creeping in is nearly 100%.  That combines with the lack of interest non-"neo-Pagans" have in the subject to demonstrate one of the weaker points of a populist encyclopedia.  I'm not in the mood for a long content dispute right now, myself, so I'm not getting in, here. Geogre 11:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: especially, regular trials of the Inquisition (for heresy) should not be lumped together with Early Modern witch trials during the height of the craze as if they were the same thing. I hacked together a history section to provide some sort of framework. Of course the article still needs much work. Since we have witchhunt to account for the phenomenon in general, I think this article should explicitly focus on the trials in Early Modern Europe. The Inquisition played a minor role in that, afaik, but inasmuch as it did play a role, it should of course be mentioned. Details of how the Inquisition operated do not belong here, of course. :de:Hexenverfolgung seems like a fair article and may be used for reference. Note that de: does merge witchhunt and witch trial in a single article. This may be a good idea here, too. 81.63.114.127 11:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Poor article

message: This article's topic is duplicated by Witch trials, which has serious POV issues and lacks references. I strongly recommend merging these articles and recommend this version of the article over Witch trials. - CNichols 22:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplication, POV, Reference? 

message: Removed the following:
Witch-trials were thus a Protestant phenomenon, with the classical Catholic nations (Italy, Spain, France) being little affected, the Spanish Inquisition concentrating on the harrying of Jews, Muslims and Illuminati. After the 1484 Summis desiderantes, Catholic parts became also affected, again mostly in German speaking areas. 
Since this referred to a period between 1400 and 1500, when there was no such thing as a Protestant, it cannot be accurate. -- NakedCelt 06:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracy removed 

message: I'm confused. The image tag one editor added seems to be a warning that the copyright on the image is unverified, so the image might be lost. Why is another editor removing the tag and saying that "that information has no place in the article"? Maestlin 16:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: I'm trying to determine which items of dispute are still current. Looking at past comments, it seems that several of these items have been largely resolved. I'm compiling a list of outstanding major problems below; these are major problems that would call for a "disputed" or "verify" tag. Please add to or remove from this list if you believe it is incorrect, and leave comments below it. This is so we have an up-to-date todo list:
----
====Items to clean up====
* clarify that accusers and prosecutors operated on hysterial, moral panic, fear, and local politics in addition to religious notions
* clarify that a tight separation needs to be made between witch hunts and witch trials during early modern Europe and the widespread conversion of European peoples to Christianity a thousand years earlier
* The assertion that "~90% of witchtrials ended in conviction (and execution)" does not correlate with the section "Number of executions" and is likely a large overestimation.
* Overall the article suffers from the fact that the term 'witch' is not clearly defined.  The term is used in several distinct ways chiefly by anthropologists and wiccans.  The distinction between the different uses is not made clear.
* The section on Hypatia suggests she was seen as a witch, but the historical source cited does not accuse her of this, only of having special magical knowledge.  The view that the trial of Hypatia was a witch trial is a modern reflection on the events and was not characterized as such at the time.
* The section on gender issues seems to imply that women were especially targeted.  Modern historinas (eg Witches and Neighbors by Robin Briggs) suggest that about 60% of persons convicted were women and %40 men.  There should be some clarification.
* The "Gender issues" section reads suspiciously like original research. Needs verification.
----
====Comments:====
Compiled list. Fuzzypeg☻ 06:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Remaining items of dispute

message: Compiled list. Fuzzypeg☻ 06:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments:

message: :Many also believed that women were sometimes envolved with sexual relationships with the devil due to their low status in the family.
I removed the above, not because putative witches were not accused of having relations with the Devil, but because this was not related to status within the family. Kramer and Sprenger make it quite clear that they believed that witches would have sex with the devil because of their innate sinfulness and tendency to promiscuity. I can find the exact reference upon request. Justin Eiler 01:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sex with the devil because of family status? 

message: Hello Ss stous (and others), although I imagine that your recent addition was made in good faith, I reverted it for a few reasons. One, it is not written in a very neutral or encyclopedic way, nor was it formatted to fit Wikipedia standards. Two, it was not properly sourced (please see WP:CITE for information on how to cite in Wikipedia articles). Three, I believe that the information you presented is valid and good to include for the most part, but I think a better way to do so would be to incorporate it into the existing text. Having a separate section (that reads like an opinion piece) does not really fit, in my opinion, with the rest of the article. Finally, it is not acceptable to sign your edits in articles; signing is reserved for talk pages. Please take some time to familiarize yourself with editing Wikipedia at WP:HELP, and then I would encourage you to incorporate your ideas (with citations!) into the body of the article. If you or others disagree with my actions, I would appreciate a dialogue on the matter. Thanks, and happy editing! romarin [talk ] 19:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit (actual vs. accusatory witchcraft)