Talk:Torture of alleged witches
I have created this wiki page for a class project at San Diego State University and hope it can be helpful to all who use it. Having said that, this is my first major contribution to Wikipedia and I am not exactly familiar with the formatting and crazy-wiki-script. As a result, I have tried my best, but still feel unhappy about the layout of the page. If someone could help organize the pictures so they correspond to the appropriate section of the page, and/or can add captions to the pictures it would be greatly appreciated. Also, I will be adding to this page (even though the project is over) and look forward to any additions you all may have. With proper evidence, feel free to adjust my work, I SWEAR I WILL NOT BE OFFENDED. Thanks, Jordonous (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Merging
[edit]I do not feel this article should be merged with witch-trials in Early Modern Europe, as this page details the torture of alleged witches, whereas witch-trials in Early Modern Europe is about the actual witch trials, and people reading that article may not wish to read THIS article. 77.86.82.41 (talk) 12:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- It should be merged as most of this article is I am afraid erroneous. The scolds bridle and the ducking school were punishments for scolding, not torture for witchcraft. For most of rest of the tortures, is it less than clear that they were used for witches and, if they were used at all, were more likely to be for other offences. Finally, witches were most emphatically not burnt in England, they were usually hanged. The section on pricking also gives too much minute detail for an encyclopaedic article. What can be salvaged can best be presented in the witch-trails article. I should add that the sources of the article are extremely problematic. Trevor Roper's essay was one of the pioneering works on the subject, but as a result he got almost everything wrong and the works by Naish and Llewellyn Barstow are both deeply flawed and certainly the first (and probably the second) should not be considered a reliable source. --SabreBD (talk) 21:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- It should be merged but either before then it is checked and tidied up, or at least very soon after. the article has value but is let down by for example the incidents of error mentioned above. 19:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'd assumed credibility in the Naish work, since it was published by Routledge, but I've made interlibrary loan requests for it and for a review of it from an academic Women's Studies journal in order to evaluate to the best of my ability since it's figuring so prominently as a source. I have no comment on the merge question, but I do agree that the article as it is now is highly problematic. I made an attempt at cleaning up the language a little, but a lot of that work seems to have been slowly undone. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- I applaud the effort and thanks to your efforts the text at least was improving. Given the publisher it was a reasonable assumption about Naish's book, but here is one review that may help put it in context. [1].--SabreBD (talk) 13:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the link. The lack of conceptual framework the review discusses doesn't bother me too much if the information is correct, but the factual errors are a problem. Since my request is already in process I'll still take a look at the book when it comes and see whether it contains useful references that can be sought elsewhere and applied to the article. I think I'll hold off on further language cleanup attempts until I've done that, so I have a better sense of the facts. No sense de-sensationalizing inaccurate information. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree the conceptual framework problem need not bother us too much, but it is difficult to judge how much of the factual information is in error once you find that some of it is wrong. I think it might be able to substantiate quite a lot from other sources, so I will look into that while you are waiting for your loan to arrive. It seems logical to clean up the article here before any merger.--SabreBD (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Received the Naish book today. Will review tonight. I've already cut a swatch of material that cites her out, since the information on Kincaid in her book amounts to one short paragraph. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree the conceptual framework problem need not bother us too much, but it is difficult to judge how much of the factual information is in error once you find that some of it is wrong. I think it might be able to substantiate quite a lot from other sources, so I will look into that while you are waiting for your loan to arrive. It seems logical to clean up the article here before any merger.--SabreBD (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the link. The lack of conceptual framework the review discusses doesn't bother me too much if the information is correct, but the factual errors are a problem. Since my request is already in process I'll still take a look at the book when it comes and see whether it contains useful references that can be sought elsewhere and applied to the article. I think I'll hold off on further language cleanup attempts until I've done that, so I have a better sense of the facts. No sense de-sensationalizing inaccurate information. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- I applaud the effort and thanks to your efforts the text at least was improving. Given the publisher it was a reasonable assumption about Naish's book, but here is one review that may help put it in context. [1].--SabreBD (talk) 13:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'd assumed credibility in the Naish work, since it was published by Routledge, but I've made interlibrary loan requests for it and for a review of it from an academic Women's Studies journal in order to evaluate to the best of my ability since it's figuring so prominently as a source. I have no comment on the merge question, but I do agree that the article as it is now is highly problematic. I made an attempt at cleaning up the language a little, but a lot of that work seems to have been slowly undone. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- It should be merged but either before then it is checked and tidied up, or at least very soon after. the article has value but is let down by for example the incidents of error mentioned above. 19:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
the article seems to be a collection of factoids at best, not based in historical context. It isn't clear which of these practices were used specifically for witch trials, and which were just standard interrogation methods of the time used for suspects in general. I am afraid this makes this entire exercise a violation of WP:SYNTH. Not to mention the style which seems to enjoy the anatomical detail with tabloid sensationalism, which makes this an {{essay-entry}}. It is not encyclopedic to cherry-pick the most gruesome details from works like "Sex and Execution 1431-1933" without giving any sort of context, when was this done, by whom, and was it exceptional or widespread. "In one such torture, the chevalet, the accused female was to sit on a pointed metal horse [...]". When, where, on whose authority, etc. "Some woman was tortured somewhere in Europe at some point during the period 1400-1700. Now let's get down to the anatomical details." -- this has an informational value of zero. --dab (𒁳) 21:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
on reflection, I think I realize what the underlying problem is. Essay-style articles on a very specific topic like this one often indicate that we are missing an article on a more general topic. In this case, the missing article is history of torture (I just created the redirect). This would be an important encyclopedic article. So far, all we have is a jumbled section at the main torture article, tagged for cleanup since last year.
What we do need is an encyclopedic article on the history of torture. Once that has a solid structure, the section on Early Modern Europe can be expanded. Once a context is established on the practices of that time, the specific case of witchcraft trials can be discussed. For this reason, the current article needs to be {{split}}, and such information as is encyclopedic should be divided between the Witch-trials in Early Modern Europe and a new History of torture article. --dab (𒁳) 08:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- SupportI think you may have hit the nail on the head. I have to agree with your view of this page and was wondering how to deal with what should be a valid topic. It sounds like a good solution to me.--SabreBD (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've just removed a swath of the sensational stuff that appears to be utter fantasy, at least as far as the Naish work is concerned. What remains is a quote (of a quote of a self-published 19th century source), which is all Naish has to say about Kincaid. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ok good job. Sad to say any reduction seems to be an improvement. I look forward to when you have had more of a chance to read the Naish book.--SabreBD (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Support - Even without studying the Torture of alleged witches article to know how the material stands on its own, torture was an important component for the trials, separating that from the trials article is like separating the Prosecution's case for the OJ Simpson murder trial in a separate article from the O. J. Simpson murder case article. A History of Torture article would be a good idea also. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Material merged into the two articles, and this article redirected to Witch_trials_in_the_Early_Modern_period#Interrogation_and_.22proofs.22. SilkTork *YES! 20:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)