Jump to content

Talk:Salem witch trials/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Salem witch trials. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

WRONG

The Salem Witch Trials occurred in Salem Massachusetts - not "colonial Massachusetts". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:400:B090:9D37:829B:73E1:1B36 (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2018

change: "Various medical and psychological explanations for the observed symptoms have been explored by researchers, including psychological hysteria in response to Indian attacks, convulsive ergotism caused by eating rye bread made from grain infected by the fungus Claviceps purpurea (a natural substance from which LSD is derived),[113] an epidemic of bird-borne encephalitis lethargica, and sleep paralysis to explain the nocturnal attacks alleged by some of the accusers"

to: "Various medical and psychological explanations for the observed symptoms have been explored by researchers, including psychological hysteria in response to Indian attacks, convulsive ergotism caused by eating rye bread made from grain infected by the fungus Claviceps purpurea (a natural substance from which LSD is derived),[113] an epidemic of bird-borne encephalitis lethargica, and sleep paralysis to explain the nocturnal attacks alleged by some of the accusers. However, claims that ergotism are responsible for symptoms of the afflicted have been refuted by others in the academic community. Physical symptoms one would expect in cases of ergotism (gangrene, alteration of skin color, etc.) were not present in the afflicted, causing the entire ergotism theory to be under a heavy shadow of doubt."

[1] [2] Salemjoel (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done not accepted for one main reason. reference http://wludh.ca/dh100/2016/T4/G5/M1/causes/ergotism/states that there are three types of ergotism, then lists the one that may have been involved in the historical event - convulsive - which then specifically does not list (gangrene, alteration of skin colour, etc) as part of the same process, but separate and different from. An excellent point worth further research and references. Edmund Patrick – confer 07:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://tosalem.com/salem-witch-trials-five-insane-theories/
  2. ^ http://wludh.ca/dh100/2016/T4/G5/M1/causes/ergotism/

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2018

Add a section regarding the influence of gender on the Salem Witch Trials. I have prepared the following: [EDIT: per request, I have inserted specific source page numbers in the first paragraph, and will continue to search for more diverse sources. Rose and thorne (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC) An overwhelming majority of people accused and convicted of witchcraft were women (about 78%) (Reis, Elizabeth. Damned Women: Sinner and Witches in Puritan New England. Cornell Unitvserity Press, Ithica NY. 1997. p. xvi.) Overall, the Puritan belief and prevailing New England culture was that women were inherently sinful and more susceptible to damnation than men were. (Reis, Elizabeth. Damned Women: Sinner and Witches in Puritan New England. Cornell Unitvserity Press, Ithica NY. 1997. p. 2.) Throughout their daily lives, Puritans, especially Puritan women, actively attempted to thwart attempts for the Devil to overtake them and their souls. Indeed, Puritans held the belief that men and women were equal in the eyes of God, but not in the eyes of the Devil. Women’s souls were seen as unprotected in their weak and vulnerable bodies. No single reason why women were more likely to admit guilt of witchcraft then men exists. Historian Elizabeth Reis asserts that some likely believed they had truly given in to the Devil, and others might have believed they had done so temporarily. However, because those who confessed were reintegrated into society, some women might have confessed in order to spare their own lives. (1)

Quarrels with neighbors often incited witchcraft allegations. One example of this is Abigail Faulkner, who was accused in 1692. Faulkner admitted she was “angry at what folk said,” and the Devil may have temporarily overtaken her, causing harm to her neighbors. (2) Women who did not conform to the norms of Puritan society were more likely to be the target of an accusation, especially those who were unmarried or did not have children. (3)

1. Damned Women: Sinners and Witches in Puritan New England by Elizabeth Reis 2. The Devil in the Shape of a Woman by Carol F. Karlsen 3. Six Women of Salem: The Untold Story of the Accused and Their Accusers in the Salem Witch Trials by Marilynne K. Roach Rose and thorne (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

:copy of above text with additions / requests. An overwhelming majority of people accused and convicted of witchcraft were women (about 78%)(REFERENCE REQUIRED). Overall, the Puritan belief and prevailing New England culture was that women were inherently sinful and more susceptible to damnation than men were.(REFERENCE REQUIRED an very important statement that must have a sound reference) Throughout their daily lives, Puritans, especially Puritan women, actively attempted to thwart attempts for the Devil to overtake them and their souls. Indeed, Puritans held the belief that men and women were equal in the eyes of God, but not in the eyes of the Devil. Women’s souls were seen as unprotected in their weak and vulnerable bodies. No single reason why women were more likely to admit guilt of witchcraft then men exists. Historian Elizabeth Reis asserts that some likely believed they had truly given in to the Devil, and others might have believed they had done so temporarily. However, because those who confessed were reintegrated into society, some women might have confessed in order to spare their own lives. (1)

The episode is one of Colonial America's most notorious cases of mass hysteria. It has been used in political rhetoric and popular literature as a vivid cautionary tale about the dangers of isolationism, religious extremism, false accusations, and lapses in due process.[1] It was not unique, but a Colonial American example of the much broader phenomenon of witch trials in the early modern period, which took place also in Europe. Many historians consider the lasting effects of the trials to have been highly influential in subsequent United States history. According to historian George Lincoln Burr, "the Salem witchcraft was the rock on which the theocracy shattered." (2) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chip2415 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


Quarrels with neighbors often incited witchcraft allegations. One example of this is Abigail Faulkner, who was accused in 1692. Faulkner admitted she was “angry at what folk said,” and the Devil may have temporarily overtaken her, causing harm to her neighbors. (2) Women who did not conform to the norms of Puritan society were more likely to be the target of an accusation, especially those who were unmarried or did not have children. (3)

if the first paragraph is all referenced to (1) for clarity it needs separate named reference with page numbers. It would be excellent if another source for the information could also be found. Have a look at Matthew Hopkins to see if any of the format there helps. Hope this is not too confusing, if so please reply here to begin with.Edmund Patrick – confer 08:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, now the really useful bit, can you convert the text references to an in line reference following the style in the rest of the article. This type of referencing is new to me, I am more used to Bury St Edmunds witch trials and Matthew Hopkins forms. Edmund Patrick – confer 13:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 Done Edmund Patrick – confer 09:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

By Chip2415 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chip2415 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Lead needs to mention their innocence:

Either the word "falsely" should be added here:

>The Salem witch trials were a series of hearings and prosecutions of people falsely accused of witchcraft in colonial Massachusetts between February 1692 and May 1693. More than 200 people were accused, 19 of whom were found guilty and executed by hanging (14 women and 5 me...


Or as a new sentence afterward, stating they were innocent.

But that would sound as if there were other people prosecuted in other trials who actually were witches. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2019

Re: Salem witch trials

1. Change the first three words in the first sentence in the second paragraph ("Twelve other women...") to "Fourteen other women and two other men...." The best list of all people executed for witchcraft in MA and CT excluding (or prior to) Salem remains John Putnam Demos, Entertaining Satan, p. 11 and Appendix, pp. 401-409. While Demos calls two of these executions (both for women) "probable" rather than certain, most scholars use the total of 36 executed in New England (20 at Salem [14 women, 6 men], 16 before Salem [14 women, 2 men]). You could add the word "Likely" to the start of the sentence if even greater precision is desired. Omitting the two men who were executed prior to Salem, as the sentence currently stands, is misleading.

2. Please add my book to the list of Further Reading: Fels, Tony. Switching Sides: How a Generation of Historians Lost Sympathy for the Victims of the Salem Witch Hunt. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2018. [I can't seem to get your italics to be working in my entry!]

Thank you, Tony Fels, Professor Emeritus of History, University of San Francisco (felsa@usfca.edu). 2601:41:4380:78D2:590D:2790:EA56:D71E (talk) 02:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you have another source for this? Because I can't access any books to confirm this, unless someone else is able to come along and help. Saucy[talk – contribs] 04:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Additionally, on the topic of "most scholars", see WP:WEASEL. EggRoll97 (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2019

Mary DeRich (younger sister of Elizabeth Proctor) Siohma (talk) 13:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what change(s) you want to make. Please make a precise request and provide reliable sources for any claims. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

SUPER WRONG

The person who wrote this bad article and block editing did not mention the CAUSE of the Salem Massachusetts witch trials clearly.

The most probably cause is poor weather causing food shortage (factual) combined with a certain kind of mold in bread likely for that region in a simple store house (proposed by historians and medical community). The mold (many molds), when eaten, causes nightmarish visions. This would be combined with starvation (already mentioned).

Blood poisoning causes nightmarish visions. We don't suspect they all had the same blood poisoning any other way but the common store house that stored the towns crops for winter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:400:B090:9D37:829B:73E1:1B36 (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

The above comment has no attribution to sources for the "probably cause" mentioned, and is unsigned… Ergot (the toxic fungus) is in fact mentioned under the Medical Theories of this article. Ogram (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2019

The article says "Good was a homeless beggar" but this is not supported by the source (her examination). The Goods were renting a room, which some sources may call 'homeless' (by Puritan standards) but it's debatable. To modern readers, the word suggests they were living outdoors, which was not the case. I think it best to remove 'homeless' since it's grey-area. Second best is to at least find a better source that uses that term and then clarify what is meant a little better. Thank you. 4.28.82.26 (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: The only online version of the examination of Sarah Good I was able to find online [1] has no information on her housing status. The Sarah Good article only states she was reduced to poverty over her husbands debts. While neither is a good source for the statement and it could possibly be removed on those grounds, there are good sources to suggest that economic status was involved. I would like to see some better sources before making a change. If you are aware of such and can direct us to those, it would be helpful. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I think the lack of sources is most telling, especially its absence from the primary sources. Her housing status isn't mentioned in her examination, nor Samuel Parris' statement, her arrest warrant, etc. We know she was a beggar and destitute, which some may conflate with homelessness, and it may not even be technically incorrect. The Goods probably lost a home due to hard times or the war, but 'homelessness' in colonial Mass probably meant they were being given shelter in exchange for labor. The sources I do find which use the word all seem to trace back to self-published undergraduate bio pages. Again, I wouldn't go so far as to call the word incorrect, just dubious and confusing and not really necessary. That she was a beggar is probably the point to be made, IMO. 4.28.82.26 (talk) 16:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 Done I'm sorry, I did not see this response and I agree that this is justified by the reference failing verification. I have also updated the link to the examination. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2019

1. Change the first seven words in the last sentence in paragraph 2 ("Only twelve other women had been executed...") to "Fourteen other women and two other men had been executed for witchcraft..." This sentence is factually incorrect as it currently stands. The best list of all people executed for witchcraft in MA and CT prior to Salem remains John Demos, Entertaining Satan, p. 11 and Appendix, pp. 401-409. While Demos calls two of these executions (both for women) "probable" rather than certain, most scholars use the total of 36 executed in New England (20 at Salem [14 women, 6 men], 16 before Salem [14 women, 2 men]). The text could add the word "likely" to the start of the sentence if even greater precision is desired.

2. Please add my book to the list of Further Reading: Fels, Tony. Switching Sides: How a Generation of Historians Lost Sympathy for the Victims of the Salem Witch Hunt. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2018. (Please italicize the book title.)

Thank you, Tony Fels, Professor Emeritus of History, University of San Francisco (felsa@usfca.edu). Nov. 18, 2019. 2601:41:4380:78D2:61E0:1371:BE:B2E2 (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Tony Fels, I have your book from the library and am enjoying it. Very much appreciate the sentiment, the arguments, the criticism, and the humanism. I hope you will consider editing and contributing to this encyclopedia. A couple articles you might appreciate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_from_Cotton_Mather_to_William_Stoughton,_September_2,_1692
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Association
Lewismr (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2019

I suggest linking Satanic Ritual Abuse and Little Rascals day care sexual abuse trial to the "See Also" tab. Although there are other trials that are closely related to the events of the Salem Witch Trials, these two phenomena are important and very similar to the those at Salem. Jwnobbles (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

 Partly done: I've added Moral panic to the General subsection of the See also section. There are several so-called 'Satanic ritual abuse' cases involving schools and/or day care centers, so listing some or all of them would be impractical. Since those all fell under the umbrella term of moral panic (which I believe the Salem trials would have also been classified as) that seems to be the best compromise article to link in the See also section.  Spintendo  01:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Under Background > Accusations, the name of Dorothy Good is underlined but instead of an article, it's an external link. I hope someone with more knowledge of this subject can assess the quality or relevance of the linked page, and change the link to a footnote if appropriate. Egmonster (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Colonial Legislature in the 19th Century?

Fourth paragraph in the introduction mentions a blanket exoneration passed by the "colonial legislature" in the 19th Century--there were no colonial legislature for Massachusetts in the 19th Century due to Massachusetts becoming a State in the 18th Century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bayowolf (talk • contribs) 18:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Modern Witches

There should be a section in this article on the impact of the trials and their history and put it into a historical context how it effects pagans today.Aandeginini (talk) 05:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for this claim? If so please provide them. CycoMa (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The Wiccan perspective should be included is what I am saying.Aandeginini (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

A worthwhile addition if referenced sources can be found as requested above. Edmund Patrick – confer 07:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Why is this mass hysteria?

The page for mass hysteria says that mass hysteria is really the mass onset of mental illness of some kind. It doesn’t seem to me like there’s evidence of mental illness here. Just religious extremism. I don’t think this is mass hysteria. Finnigami (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Witch trails

Its quite concerning that it’s death or death 2A00:23C8:6E90:CD01:DDF2:9EBD:6523:6308 (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2018 and 17 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Rose and thorne.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2022

Change the template from no sources cited for a section with two citations to additional citations needed. 207.81.187.41 (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done Happy Editing--IAmChaos 03:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2022

In the "Salem Witch trials" article, in the section titled "Timeline / September 1692", the article states, "Giles Corey refused to plead at arraignment,". However, in the same article, farther down, in the section titled "Legal Procedures / Overview", the article states, "Giles Corey pleaded not Guilty to his Indictment, but would not put himself upon Tryal by the Jury (they having cleared none upon Tryal) and knowing there would be the same Witnesses against him, rather chose to undergo what Death they would put him to." So these statements are at odds with one another. The second statement seems to me to be the correct one, i.e. that Corey pleaded not guilty at his arraignment but refused to plead at his trial, based on this statement's being a direct quote from the source, Robert Calef. So I recommend that the first statement quoted above, in the "September 1692" section of the article, be changed to, "Giles Corey refused to plead at trial,". Geschict (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Bibliography and Further Reading

The bibliography and further reading seems to be a bit long, perhaps a article listing the books mentioned titled "Bibliography of the Salem Witch Trials" or "List of Books about the Salem Witch Trials", and this article can have the most important and crictical books about the trials listed. I don't know much about the trials, and so perhaps someone knowledgeable about the trials can whittle the list down to the most books that are a core part of work about the Salem Witch Trials. NDNSWMI (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Wrong.

The salem witch trials had nothing to do with religious extremism, rather political extremism and one corrupt priest. Christian values don't support anything in Salem. 104.188.21.23 (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Misconceptions

Hi there! Common misconceptions about the Salem witch trials is that they were burned alive or drowned?(heard this once) but they where actually hanged. In Europe they were burned if I am not mistaken. This wiki article doesn’t say this but just a disclaimer. 162.78.0.242 (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2022

Change "drawn" to 'drew' DieselTheDodo (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

 Question: Where? All three uses of "drawn" are grammatically correct. Actualcpscm (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2022

Section 1.4, sentence 1: "Salem Village (present-day Danvers, Massachusetts) was known for its fractious population, who had many internal disputes, and for disputes between the village and Salem Town (present-day Salem)"

Request to change "...who had many internal disputes, and for disputes between the village..." to "...who had many internal disputes, including disputes between the village..."

Thanks!!☆ Kurisupi.dbf (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the original sentence is grammatically correct!! This change is a suggestion that might make it easier to read. c: Kurisupi.dbf (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Reworded further. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Fourth paragraph of Timeline mentions 'Good'. Should this link to Dorothy Good (page: Dorothy_Good)? Flapdoddle (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Seminar in Digital and Public History

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2023 and 8 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Historiology (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Historiology (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

why is this locked?

why locked?? 97.124.236.235 (talk) 02:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

sources for page

sources for page 71.223.92.145 (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

One chapter seems more like patriotic love than informal text

The chapter "Fundamental U.S. Principals & Outcomes" seems more like a proclamation of love for the U.S society than neutral, informal text. Urpoliitikko (talk) 07:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Both it and the "Religious Impacts" chapter are of questionable quality. Both chapters lack any citations, and the quality of writing is subpar in comparison to the rest of the article. They should be removed. 2600:1700:6A10:3D1F:F189:5F67:859D:79CA (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2023

The "Religious Impacts" chapter in its entirety and the first two paragraphs of "Fundamental U.S. Principals & Outcomes" should be outright removed from the article.

The editor makes biased claims without any sources or citation. The quality of writing is noticeably subpar in comparison to the rest of the article as well.

If possible, all changes made by the editor in question should be reversed.

[1] Franzspohr (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Fundamental U.S. Principals & Outcomes The Salem Witch trials significantly impacted Puritanism, and the Great Awakening and founding principles incorporated into the U.S. Independence, choice, and empowerment are all common U.S. values and founding principles. Following the domino effect, we can see how they all stem from the Great Awakening and then date back to the Witch Trials. The empowerment of the citizens who spoke out against purism during the Great Awakening and asked the problematic and revolutionizing questions during the trials directly manifest themselves in the U.S. we live in today. Living in a society where actual change comes from personal curiosity and asking those hard questions, we see how, even when creating the Constitution, the founding fathers were able to feel the power to make such a high-functioning, revolutionary country. Not only did they have empowerment, but they also weren't diluted by puristic views. If our country were created by men who were puristic, we would still be living in hopes of being selected as the elect and facing internal conflict in our country because we saw what happens when you question principles, whether witchery or religion or even modern-day political dilemmas, being freed from a one-right-answer textbook way of living can inspire people to have the independence of choice and improvement. Most importantly, the Witch Trials were among the first places Americans began to manifest independence, a value we still uphold today. The civilians of Salem and participants of the Great Awakening showed their autonomy when they decided to leave the manipulative, puristic religious system and create individualized branches of religion with personal and meaningful connections. This is what America is built upon. The ability to choose where with whom you practice religion or even if you practice religion is vital. All these principles, rooted in the witch trials and emphasized during the great awakening, contributed to the individual freedom and autonomy we value as fundamental in the United States.
 Done Cannolis (talk) 07:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: History of Science

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aljgm6 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Aljgm6 (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Phenomenon

What is the name of this sort of thing? I read that the term "inquisition" can only be applied to Catholicism. So, which term should be applied to other religions? --95.24.75.123 (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Catholicism is not a religion in its own right, just a type of Christianity. I don't see what inquisition has to do with the witch trials in the early modern period. Some Catholic countries (like Spain and Portugal) had relatively few witch trials in this era (due to the lack of interest of the Spanish and Portuguese Inquisitions in persecuting this crime), while several Protestant countries had a rather high number of witch trials due to the support of witch-obsessed political leaders, particularly Scotland under the demonology "expert" James VI and I (who thought that witches were trying to assassinate him). Dimadick (talk) 07:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Salem_witch_trials/Archive_5&oldid=1246852885"