Pendle witches is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 3, 2008.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 20, 2008 Good article nominee Listed July 29, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted
	Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 18, 2014, August 18, 2015, August 18, 2019, and August 18, 2022.
Current status: Featured article

This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. European history High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Lancashire and Cumbria High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lancashire and Cumbria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Lancashire and CumbriaWikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaTemplate:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaLancashire and Cumbria High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Enforcement High‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Occult Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Women's History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women in Religion High‑importance This article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Women in ReligionTemplate:WikiProject Women in ReligionWomen in Religion High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Religion High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

I think the backstory of Good Omens by Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett also involves the Lancashire witch trials, but it's been a long time since I read it and can't say for sure. Anyway the family names Device and Nutter figure in the book. --Jim Henry 01:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• To save anyone else looking this up, yes, Good Omens uses the family names Nutter and Device (Anathema Device, Practical Occultist, is the descendent of the witch Agnes Nutter) but there's no deeper connection. I think it is only relevant to this article if an "In Popular Culture"^[1] section were to be added.AkaSylvia (talk) 09:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Manchester have spotted the buses of the Burnley and Pendle bus company operate a '#Witch Way' service with each bus named after one of the witches in question http://www.thewitchway.co.uk/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.48.235.87 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 30 September 2006.

Robert Neill, the historical novelist, wrote a very readable and well researched fictionalized account of the Pendle Witch Trials and their background with the above title. Sadly, he is now unfashionable and the book is out of print, but still available second hand and in some public libraries. It's no longer available in mine because it's been worn out by borrowers. Neill's work and interpretation certainly deserves a mention in the main article. See the reader reviews on Amazon.co.uk. Sasha (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm considering a complete rewrite of the article. It would probably be more tactful to try to edit what's there and incorporate extra material into it, but having looked at the article as it is now, I feel it would be a lot easier to start from scratch, so I hope nobody who has been working on it will feel that I've trodden on their corns. I'd ask people to be patient, as the initial draft may reduce the article to something shorter than its current state, but I'll be very happy to discuss and make changes after I've done the first bit of work. I'll be working from the three books that are mentioned in the "Further reading" section — Bennett, Pool, and Potts. ElinorD (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only messed around with it as I came across it by accident and was intrigued as I used to live near there. I would be very interested to see it rewritten as it looks like a great story but this article does not do it justice. Thanks for offering to do the work! Sophia 13:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is unreferenced information in the The Pendle Witches article that may or may not be worth bringing to this article. Either this article or the The Pendle Witches article should be turned into a redirect. Both articles can not stand alone. Clerks. 19:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the merger notice has been in place for some considerable time, and no editor has opposed the merger proposal, then I am going ahead with it. I have merged what material I think is useful from The Pendle Witches article into this one, and I have also deleted the lengthy quotations from the confessions, as it didn't seem to be in any kind of context. I will now set up the redirect from The Pendle Witches and I look forward to this article now evolving into one that does its subject proper justice. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to add Commons:Image:Potts.png to the article some time ago, but it went out of my head. I see someone has done great work on the since I last looked. Obviously the place to put the image of the Potts book would be in the section on the trial, but it won't fit without other things being moved and rewritten, and I don't know if it's worth the trouble. But I'm just mentioning the image here in case anyone wants to add it at any stage. If not, no problem. Several months ago, I was planning a major rewrite of this article myself, but I don't have the time right now. ElinorD (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Potts' book deserves a section to itself, as it's essentially written a series of mock trials that don't reflect the reality of Jacobean courtroom procedure, and very likely had a political motivation. So that would obviously be the best place for the image. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. If you find a use for it, use it. If I get time to get more involved (I've been ill recently), I might add it myself. In the meantime, you know where to find it if you have a use for it. ElinorD (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping to get this article ready for a GA nomination in the next week or so, so any help will be gratefully received. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A good article has the following attributes:

1. It is well written. In this respect:

(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

• The following text has too much personal voice for an encyclopedia. Is this a direct quote for the cited book or is it paraphrased? Please revise: "Bromley on the other hand was looking for promotion to a circuit nearer London, but how best to bring himself to James' attention? Was it by aggressively testing the witnesses, or by encouraging convictions for witchcraft?[9]"
• "malefic" is jargon -- please replace with more familiar word, like "evil" or "malicious"
• Break See also links into two columns to conserve space

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:

(a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;

(b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;[2] and

(c) contains no original research.

• Please find a citation for the text I marked accordingly
• I think this text needs an additional citation, apart for the oft-quoted witchcraft book or it should be removed: "Witchcraft is a crime that most people would now define as impossible, and indeed the 1736 Witchcraft Act repealed the 1604 legislation, removing the crime of malevolent witchcraft from the statute books." Such a sweeping claim requires another perspective.

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:

(a) addresses the major aspects of the topic;[3] and

(b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).

• Good

4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

• Good

5. It is stable; that is, it is not the subject of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Vandalism reversion, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing) and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.

• No prior issues

6. It is illustrated, where possible, by images.[4] In this respect:

(a) images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions.[5]

• Five images, all adhering to respective copyright statuses
• Policy states that lacing an image to the left of a header, a list, or the Table of Contents is also frowned upon. User:Malleus Fatuarum claims that the rule about left-aligned images applies only to sub-sections, but I don't see this exception anywhere—and sub-section or not, it's still a "header" of a section. In this case, the picture would ease the flow of the article to if placed right also. Unless an otherwise stated policy can be found, please change.

• Can you locate one of these logos and post it? "Several local corporate bodies and businesses use a 'flying witch' logo..."

In its current condition, I will put this GAN on hold until the above issues are addressed. Thank you! --Eustress (talk) 04:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt and very thorough review of this article, in which you make some very good points.

• The requested citation has now been provided.

• I've removed the text to which you objected, about witchcraft being a crime that most people would now define as impossible ... whether or not that's true, it is almost certainly an issue better discussed elsewhere than in this article.

• For image placement, see MoS_images. The rule about left-alignment you quote applies to subsection headers, not to section headers. You may also like to take a look at logical quotation.

• Changed "malefic witchcraft" to "causing harm by witchcraft".

• The text considered to have too much personal voice has been revised.

• I've removed a number of irrelevant links from See also. The English experience of witchcraft was quite different from the European one.

• There would be no convincing fair use rationale for including any (copyrighted) logos.

• The "oft-quoted witchcraft book" is the standard text on the subject.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your attention. I'm happy to pass this to GA status...congratulations! --Eustress (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about the references to the "Most Haunted" show in the Cultural References section. First of all, the host of the show was Yvette Fielding, not Derek Acorah - he was one of the resident "psychics". Secondly, it says that Derek Acorah was "possessed" during the programme. Although "possessed" is in inverted commas, I think it would be more accurate to say that he "appeared to be possessed". Acorah was supposedly "possessed" by some "spirit" every week and in fact, he was later dropped from the Most Haunted shows after the team became convinced he was making things up from bits of information he overheard during filming. Thirdly, some of the audience say they see "dark beings" and other such things on the webcams every week - not just in this programme. I think it really would be better to limit the Most haunted reference to the fact that it was the most watched programme on television that night, as the rest of it is unsubstantiated speculation that trivialises the subject. Richerman (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to make whatever changes you think are appropriate. Cultural references is a section I've pretty much left alone, and to be truthful I'm not at all comfortable with any of it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned it up and removed some of the rubbish, but I agree that it's dangerously close to being a triva section. Richerman (talk) 23:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a trivia section, that's what's bothering me. Can a bus company's logo really be called a cultural reference? It's a lot better now that you've pruned some of the rubbish, but it's still not right. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd had hopes of maybe taking this to FA fairly soon, but it'll never get through that with this section as it stands. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy for it to go but I suspect it would return fairly quickly. Richerman (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oooo! I love a challenge. There's still a little bit to be added to the trials and the modern interpretation I think, but other than sorting out this bloody Cultural references section I think it would stand a fair chance at FA? What do you think? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I knew I shouldn't have thrown down a challenge like that! Yes, I think it's a good candidate, however one thing I've picked up - in the section Modern Interpretation it says:

"Court records show that Lancashire was peculiar in the north of England for the frequency of its witch trials. Neighbouring Cheshire, for instance, suffered from economic problems and religious activists just as did Lancashire, but in that county between 1589 and 1675 only 47 individuals were indicted for causing harm by witchcraft, of whom 11 were found guilty."

However, there's no comparative figure for indictments in Lancashire that I can see. Richerman (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted! But I did say that there was still a bit to be added to that section. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuses, excuses. Also, in the lead shouldn't "Old Demdike" be called by her real name, and wasn't she an "alleged witch" as she never got to be tried? Of course, that raises the question - if they were found guilty, does that mean they really were witches? :-)Richerman (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. In fact I was rather sorry to have to remove the comment about "witchcraft being a crime that most people would now define as impossible", as there never were any witches really, just people convicted as witches. Which is not at all the same thing. Perhaps I'll try and sneak that back in somewhere. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... "Most people would think" sounds like weasel words to me. Perhaps something verifiable like "Witchcraft is no longer recognised as a crime in British law" would be better. Richerman (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Most people ..." was a direct and attributed quotation if I recall correctly. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should have known I wouldn't catch you out that easily - is it ok to quote weasel words though? And anyway, I'm sure some people would say that there were witches all along, it's just that we're non-believers. Richerman (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're right, there is a POV issue there. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to comment on this even if it is half a year old. "Acorah was later dropped from the Most Haunted shows after the team became convinced he was making things up from bits of information he overheard during filming"? They sacked a psychic for making stuff up from a show about ghosts? That would be like sacking Wolf from Gladiators for being violent! Or sacking Frankie Boyle from Mock The Week for being mean about people! Can you imagine an executive from The God Channel going up to one of their evangelists and saying "I'm sorry, but we think you're making this stuff up, how do you know this God guy is real"? --86.167.18.74 (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but how does the point you're making improve the article? Take it to the Derek Acorah article. Nev1 (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WoooOOOooo! --86.167.18.74 (talk) 07:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the final hour of the programme, in which the presenters attempted to conduct a seance with the Pendle witches, was the most watched show on UK television that evening Unfortunately this claim is extremely dubious (much like the programme itself!). Most Haunted is on Living TV - a minority interest subscription channel only available on satellite, which gets on average about 0.6% of the viewing audience (approx half of that of BBC3 which is only available on Freeview) compared for example with 20% for BBC1. Even if viewing figures doubled for MH it would still only be on a par with BBC3 and would need an extraordinary (supernatural?) increase in viewers to be the most watched programme on TV that evening. Sadly I find this unbelievable and suggest that you remove the claim - it adds little to an article on the Pendle Witch Trials in any case. twitter (talk) 08:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is sourced and says "Millions of people tuned in with the final hour of the Hallowe'en show being the most watched programme in the whole of the UK". Nev1 (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that it is sourced but I would suggest that the Clitheroe Advertiser and Times is not a sufficiently reputable sole source of information on which to base an entry in an encyclopaedia. If you can find another source of audience figures to back it up then fine. This is an interesting and authoritative article about the Pendle Witch Trials, why spoil it with an unneccessary, (almost unrelated) largely unsubstantiated claim about a faked TV Programme's viewing figures? Given a couple of minutes thought most people are likely to dismiss the claim as absurd and it therefore detracts from the article.twitter (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I can prove that this statement is complete bunkum. The following website records TV viewing figures for the last 10 years.

http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary/weekreports.cfm?RequestTimeout=500&report=weeklytop30

I believe that the MH episode you refer to went out at Halloween 2004. If you pull off the report for w/e 31/10 and 07/11 you can see that MH is the top living TV programme with a peak of 0.81 m viewers on the Sunday. At the same time on BBC1 Michael Palin had 7.74 m viewers with Himalaya (almost 10 times the amount of viewers that MH received). I am therefore deleting the reference from the article.twitter (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. That website looks to be a useful resource. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather confused with the names of the Demdike family on the diagram. Where does the name "Demdike" come from, was it just a nickname, and if so why is the family known as the Demdike family when the son's surname is Holgate? Also, why is Old Demdike called Elizabeth Southerns when her son is called Holgate? And shouldn't it be Elizabeth Holgate who married John Device rather than Elizabeth Device? That wasn't her name until after the marriage. Richerman (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demdike is a nickname, just like Chattox. I've no idea where either of them came from. So far as I'm aware, they were called the Demdike family because they all lived together at Malkin Tower, with Old Demdike. So far as John Holgate is concerned, it's not uncommon for children to have a different surname from their mother, because their mother remarried, for instance. In the case of John Holgate, I suspect that he was born illegitimately, and that he did not have the same father as his sister Elizabeth. It would be an unsupported assumption therefore, to give Elizabeth the surname Holgate. Nowehere is she referred to as Elizabeth Holgate. The bottom line, of course, is that the only record we have of any of these people is what Potts' wrote in his pamphlet, so we can only report what he tells us. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, my confusion will remain then. Richerman (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the footnotes cite "Lumby 2002," but there is no Lumby in the bibliography. John M Baker (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted! I'll fix that.  Done --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religious articles use "supposed," "claimed" and "believed" to qualify statements as the perceptions of others. This article suggests that the victims were in fact witches and that witches and witch magic did in fact exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.28.92.58 (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They were convicted as witches, ergo they are witches. The article quite properly makes no judgement about whether witch magic exists or not. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That makes them tried/convicted witches, but not definitive witches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.28.164.47 (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What, in your opinion, would make them "definitive witches"? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a person is accused of robbing a bank he is properly described as the alleged bank robber. After he has been tried and convicted of the crime he is properly described as a bank robber. However, if new evidence comes to light and his conviction is rescinded he can no longer be called a bank robber, even though he was once tried by all due process and convicted.

The crime of being a witch, and associated crimes of witchcraft, ceased to exist on the English statues centuries ago. When the crime of being a witch was erased from the statutes I believe all persons previously convicted of that offence were automatically exonerated. (There is a legal principle involved here, but I can't recall its latin name.) Persons who were convicted of being witches and executed, centuries ago, are very much like bank robbers who were convicted but subsequently exonerated. Witchcraft is no longer a crime, and I consider it unlikely any of the modern legal institutions would defend a suggestion that witchcraft trials represented due process, or that their convictions remain legitimate. Consequently, whereas it is reasonable to say a person was convicted of robbing a bank, ergo he is a bank robber, the same argument cannot be extended to saying a person was convicted of being a witch, ergo he is a witch.

The fact that Wikipedia continues to support, by implication, the notion that witchcraft and witches are real, and that these labels are legitimate, appears to be more easily understood as a desire to preserve the status quo than a desire for continual improvement. For example, Malleus Fatuorum is a vigorous defender of continued implication that these people were in fact witches. I see no sign that Malleus Fatuorum shares the same interest as 161.28.92.58 in improving Wikipedia by a process of change. Wikipedia does not have a policy of Preserve the status quo'. Wikipedia's policy in these matters can be found at WP:BE BOLD. Dolphin51 (talk) 05:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are no doubt many things you don't see, including the fact that the UK government has several times been petitioned to issue pardons for various witches but has consistently refused, on the basis that the accused were convicted under the laws in force at the time, the Witchcraft Acts. Until a pardon is issued a convicted murderer is considered a murderer, and the same logic applies to convicted witches. I agree that the crime is impossible to a 21st-century mind, but the early 17th century was a rather different time. If you want to try and change history then you may have come to the wrong shop, because I'll see your sad arse in a sling before I'll let you bastardise this article, or any other witch article, because of your revisionist view of history. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MF. I'm pleased to see the first sign that you are willing to write objectively on this subject - you write knowledgeably about the petitioning of the UK government. You quoted the Witchcraft Acts. This is where encyclopedias excel, and it is the way WP Users are encouraged to work and make progress. Please continue with your undoubted skills of an objective nature.

Sadly, you are persisting with a rather aggressive approach to people who suggest changing Wikipedia articles. For example, There are no doubt many things you don't see This is called an Ad hominem remark. Such remarks usually have no place in objective writing. Attack the principle, but don't bother attacking the person.

If you want to try and change history I'm not trying to change history. This is a scare tactic and I see right throught it. It is as inappropriate as using this Talk page to write If you want to be a Nazi stormtrooper or If you want to be a climate-change vandal

I'll see your sad arse in a sling before I'll let you bastardise this article This is tough talk. (Wow, you must be a very tough guy!)

MF, no-one is trying to fight you, or take away your toy. We are all here at Wikipedia voluntarily, because it is a hobby. You are a welcome participant without having to fight to remain here. No-one is threatening you. You are capable of making a truly OBJECTIVE contribution to this article and to Wikipedia. Why not join the rest of the gang and participate collaboratively and objectively. Use the Talk pages to communicate as an equal, not to defend your territory. Best wishes. Dolphin51 (talk) 07:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calm, both of you two. I know Malleus is committed to WP, sometimes rather passionately, and so far I'm confident that Dolphin51 is very similar :-/ Hell, I can see the 2 of you having robust discussions for the fun of it - after clearing the area of civility policy.

The present discussion may be helped by clearer definitions. The different between legal and common usage may be one, as may be the difference between 18-cent (or whenever) and modern usage. --Philcha (talk) 09:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Philcha. Thank you for your calming influence, and your willingness to participate on this Talk page. I can assure you that I am committed to Wikipedia being a quality encyclopedia. It can only achieve that by collaboration, co-operation and civility. I am always keen to use Talk pages to achieve these ends, providing I am allowed to participate as an equal. Best wishes. Dolphin51 (talk) 09:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"If you want to try and change history I'm not trying to change history. This is a scare tactic and I see right throught it. It is as inappropriate as using this Talk page to write If you want to be a Nazi stormtrooper or If you want to be a climate-change vandal" - actually, you are trying to change history. They were judged to be witches, and punished accordingly. The meaning of the word may have changed since then, but the fact that they were classified as witches, has not. What you're attempting to do is impose your definition of a witch on the article, and it's wrong. Parrot of Doom 10:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, your "bank robber" analogy is spurious. If a person convicted of witchcraft were to be pardoned, or retried and found not guilty, then they would no longer be described as a witch. If bank robbery in 100 years somehow became perfectly legal, I cannot see anyone then petitioning the government to try and rename those formerly guilty of the offence of bank robbery, as "people" (as you would have it). Legal or not, they would still be bank robbers. Parrot of Doom 10:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, PoD. "bank robber" might be like "witch" in some ways - I suspect that both have no legal status, while the acts of robbery and witchcraft are / were legally defined. a few That's no a mere quibble - "physician" and "surgeon" are legally defined professions, and their members are regulated - and a member may have that status for a few years even if he/she stops practicing (e.g. becomes a TV celebrity - which is not a legally defined profession). --Philcha (talk) 11:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is convicted of causing harm by withcraft then they are de facto a witch. That the legislation they were charged under has not been on the statute book since 1735 is immaterial. It is absurd to argue that when a law is repealed all those found guilty under it are automatically pardoned as it would be to argue that when a new law is enacted the state can go back and retrospectively apply that law to people who had at that time committed no offence. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Parrot of Doom. Welcome to this thread!

Let’s start with a couple of facts. In Pendle witches I noticed the expression fewer than 500 witches were executed. On 5 March I changed the word witches to people. My edit summary said Those who were executed were people. Wikipedia does not promote the idea that they were witches. See the [diff]. Thirty minutes later Malleus Fatuorum reverted my edit with the edit summary they were tried and found guilty of being witches. Live with it. See the [diff]

The primary question before us is not who is right and who is wrong? It isn’t even were they really witches or not? The only question of relevance on this Talk page is How should Wikipedia identify these 500 individuals?

Should Wikipedia say fewer than 500 witches were executed? Or should it say something different? Perhaps fewer than 500 people were executed. Should Wikipedia identify these 500 hapless souls as witches, or people, or people convicted of witchcraft? The best answer to this question should be determined on this Talk page. Dolphin51 (talk) 12:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously suggesting that this article should be renamed Pendle people? That most of us now consider witchcraft to be an impossible crime is completely irrelevant. These people were tried under the law of their time and found guilty of causing harm by witchcraft. That is an incontrovertible fact. Are we to expunge the word "witch" from all wikipedia articles because you have decided to object to its use? Is yours a specific crusade against this article alone, or is it part of a more general move? What's next? Matthew Hopkins, People-Finder General? It is not for wikipedia to decide, but to reflect what reliable sources say, and the Pendle witches are unequivocally called witches. I have no particular investment in the specific sentence to which you object though, and so I have changed it to "It has been estimated that all of the English witch trials between the early 15th and early 18th centuries resulted in fewer than 500 executions, so this series of trials during the summer of 1612 accounts for more than 2% of that total." Now can we move on to something more interesting? --Malleus Fatuorum 14:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I believe all persons previously convicted of that offence were automatically exonerated." This is categorically untrue, else there would not be the periodic petitions for pardons to be issued, and the Swiss government would not have had to issue a pardon for Anna Göldi – on the grounds of a mis-trial, not because of any conviction that witchcraft was an impossible crime. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should follow the exact same naming principle as the sources used in the article—witches. Parrot of Doom 14:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem with the title "Pendle witches" - many titles are archaic but historically important, e.g. Turbellaria, Pelasgians, Homer. But it's necessary to clear out any confusions. --Philcha (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no confusion, only revisionism masquerading as pedantry. All reliable sources refer to those executed at Lancaster jail in 1612 as "witches". No ifs, no buts, witches. The Samlesbury witches (that's what they're called in the literature) article is interesting in this respect as those women were found not guilty; the article therefore calls those three women "accused witches". --Malleus Fatuorum 17:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I approve of the changes made by Malleus Fatuorum! However, I can’t speak for others. Other Users are free to use this Talk page to discuss the issue further. For example, some Users might consider MF is re-writing history. (My preference would have been for MF to join in the debate on this page, expand on his views and give Wikipedia the benefit of his knowledge on this subject, which is clearly considerable. However, it seems that, on this subject, MF does not talk to others as an equal, he simply makes unilateral changes.)

I am not advocating that the title of the article be changed to Pendle persons. I have never mentioned such a thing. (The only person to mention this idea is MF.) Also, I am not on a crusade of any sort.

Wikipedia should use language that can be found in dictionaries and similar reference books. My dictionary explains that a witch is: a person, now esp. a woman, who professes or is supposed to practice magic, esp. black magic or the black art; sorceress.

Prior to the most recent edits by MF, this article spoke of 500 witches being executed. Any reader was entitled to ask themselves what is a witch? If they used the same dictionary as me they would have translated this as 500 persons who profess or are supposed to practice magic, esp. black magic or the black art. They would have ended up with an interpretation very different to the way we would interpret this passage: 500 persons who had been tried and convicted under the Witchcraft Acts.

When people read Wikipedia they can be assured that what they read is supported by suitable independent sources. Readers usually don’t have access to those cited sources in their entirety. However, it is reasonable to assume they do have access to dictionaries. Therefore all encyclopedias, including Wikipedia, must choose carefully when to use language that matches the language in the cited sources, and when to use language that can be interpreted accurately using a dictionary. I am satisfied that this has now been achieved with this article, at least as far as my original objection is concerned. Again, I emphasise that I don’t intend to speak for others and this is not intended to terminate this discussion. Others should feel free to continue. Dolphin51 (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're happy now then so am I, and perhaps we can leave this now. I will freely admit that your "I see no sign that Malleus Fatuorum shares the same interest as 161.28.92.58 in improving Wikipedia by a process of change" comment ruffled my feathers somewhat, as nothihg could be further from the truth. Comments like "I'm pleased to see the first sign that you are willing to write objectively on this subject" are also not likely to win friends and influence people, certainly not me. I suggest that the next time you want to initiate a discussion with me you treat me with the same respect you'd like to be treated by yourself, which may result in a less stressful dialogue over one word in one sentence. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you MF. I see further value in us discussing the issues you have raised, and reaching a mutually beneficial conclusion. I will write to you on your User Talk page. Very best wishes. Dolphin51 (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I always enjoy an intelligent discussion, so I look forward to it. I really do promise you that I am no reactionary stick-in-the mud, but I will defend my corner regardless of whatever sticks and stones are thrown. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see both sides of this. On the one hand, it's clear the people in this case weren't witches. The "Modern interpretation" section addresses this by citing books saying that most likely they were mentally ill or pretended to be a witch as a job. It's clear that they were people executed for something that they wouldn't be accused of/convicted of/executed for today. However, since all the contemporary sources would have referred to them as witches and that's how they're popularly known, it's a tricky area. As far as them being convicted so it's fine to call them witches, I noticed that this article uses the term more than articles on more contemporary criminals. For instance, in glancing at the Timothy McVeigh and Theodore Kaczynski articles, neither are referred to even once in their articles as a "murderer"-- that's only found in the titles of articles used as sources in the references section. In other words, there is precedence for finding other wording and not referring to someone just by the crime they were convicted of. I noticed that the last ref[1] calls them 'witches' in quotation marks and mentions that 'ten people were executed.' The article is a very high quality so I'm not necessarily suggesting any changes, but I think it is an interesting discussion to have. Why does the article not mention that they have been denied pardons by the UK government? That seems to me very relevant. The last sentence mentions a recent petition submitted on behalf of two of them but as far as I could tell mentions no other petitions or refusals to grant pardons.--Gloriamarie (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There have been two petitions for pardons submitted to the UK government so far as I'm aware, the first in 1998, rejected on the grounds that the convictions were in accordance with due legal process and should stand (now added to the article). I've found no information on what the result of the 2008 petition was, but I strongly suspect the result was the same, which is why it's not been reported on. The crime for which the Lancashire witches were convicted and executed was removed from the statute book in 1735, but that clearly doesn't change anything for them, otherwise it would not be felt necessary to petition for pardons. So far as some sources calling them 'witches', many, many more don't;[2] we need to be chary of being too politically correct over this issue. These people were uniquivocally found guilty of causing harm by witchcraft, a capital crime at that time, and therefore were unequivocally considered to be witches in the eyes of the law.

The analogy you draw with Timothy McVeigh's article is not an altogether an apposite one, as he was obviously one man. This was a group of people to whom the name "Pendle witches" is routinely applied. A better example would be referring to Ian Brady and Myra Hindley as the Moors murderers, which they very frequently are. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple of small thoughts about this great debate; the people concerned were indeed tried for witchcraft, therefore the suggestion is that witch is a proper label for them because they were convicted under the law of the time. I disagree to some extent. The 20th century has seen people being killed for being 'subhuman' or being 'wreckers and enemies of the state' but we recognise that these labels were legal fictions devised by the regimes that killed them. Albeit the law at the time condemned these people as witches, is it right to say this makes them witches, especially as the legal processes used would not be acceptable nowadays? Leading on to my second point, does this then encourage the view that if we insist on calling them witches, we're lending credence to a) that they caused death by magic means and b) a general accepatnce that there is witchcraft and magic.

Secondly, the article does steer carefully away from "witchcraft: a delusion, or does it really work?", and I appreciate this is a conscious decision; personally it would be nice to see more discussion about this topic to better put the witch trials into context. As it is - I feel we're still a teeny bit on the side of Ainsworth and the romantic/fictional view, rather than a realistic interpretation of what facts we can verify. The lack of skepticism discussion says much of what I would say, and I think we need a more balanced view perhaps?

Overall - a great page. Mungo Shuntbox (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As has been said elsewhere, witchcraft is an impossible crime to modern eyes, therefore the purpose of the modern view section is to try and put things in perspective, but not in any kind of judgemental way. Simply present the facts as we understand them today and allow the reader to draw his or her own conclusions. When writing the article I tried to avoid describing any of the accused as witches, but as a group they are still known today as the Pendle witches, and their trial as the Lancashire witch trial; it's a balancing act. Similarly with the "witchcraft: a delusion, or does it really work?" That's not an appropriate discussion for this article, but what's very clear is that John Law believed it worked, as did Alizon Device, who begged his forgiveness. It's also very clear that trying to make a living as cunning folk (whether you'd call them witches or not) was rather common in 17th century England. The article's not perfect, nothing in this life ever can be, but I think it makes a decent fist of telling this sad story. Malleus Fatuorum 17:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a lot more of them! Surely for FA status and to be the FA of the day, this is a standard requirement? Keeper of the Matrix (talk) 15:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The FA criteria are here, nothing about linking. Over-linking is an issue that WP:MOSLINK is trying to encourage people to avoid. Terms should only be linked once and there is no need to link common terms. Nev1 (talk) 15:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the sentence ...It has been estimated that in all of the English witch trials between the early-15th and late-18th centuries, fewer than 500 witches were executed, so this one series of trials over three days in the summer of 1612 accounts for more than 2% of that total.... can the reference be referenced. I only ask because although I have already used this wonderful static Bury St. Edmunds witch trials after a brief piece of research I find

• • Notestein, Wallace (1911). A History of Witchcraft In England from 1558 to 1718. New York: American Historical Association 1911 (reissued 1965) New York Russell & Russell. {{cite book}}: Text "L.C. Catalogue Card No: 65-188240954829816" ignored (help)

Wallace Notestein quotes Stearne of knowing and partaking in 200 himself, verified by the monies they earned and other records and that in James Howell Famillar Letters, II p511 of 1648 he mentions just under 300 executed in Essex and Suffolk only "within the compass of two years". That only leaves 200 for the rest of the country and the other two centuries. Edmund Patrick – confer 19:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is referenced, ref #60. I don't think the article would have got through FAC otherwise. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be sceptical about that 1911 claim. I've been reminded before that historians before about the middle of the 20th century were not as careful about their standards of evidence as they are now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that yes it is referenced but what of it. That in itself does not say much, which is why I asked where the author got it from. Notestein researched parish and town records for the payments made to Hopkins and the other three, and based on that there were many executions. I do not see why clerks would pay for execution/ burial / etc without it happening. And Howell lived through it and I see no gain from him being not careful about standards. Of course Notestein could be wrong, but judging that the American Historical Association re-printed it the 1970s as a valid research book and not a curosity and Kessinger Publishing in(August 2003) I am as of yet not so sceptical. I may be proved wrong. Edmund Patrick – confer 20:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of many reasons why payments may have been falsified, I'm sure you can too. But to answer your question, the estimate of 500 executions was made by Christina Larner, Witchcraft and Religion: The Politics of Popular Belief (Oxford: Blackwell, 1984), pp. 71–72. "More recent research by Sharpe on English sources has suggested that Larner's estimate was in all probability accurate." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

excellent thanks, I will be onto it. extra work I fear with the collection I work with...Ho Hum...Edmund Patrick – confer 20:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What an unfortunate surname! --MacRusgail (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 different spellings Grey (British) Gray (American) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.92.175 (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all. Today I added a tag to this page noting that in certain respects it was outdated, and before I had the chance to comment on the reason for this here on the talk page, the tag was removed, and dismissed as "rubbish". Now I take issue with this; recently Joyce Froome has published Wicked Enchantments: A History of the Pendle Witches and their Magic (2010), which has shown itself to be the most exhaustive publication yet on this fascinating subject. However, the page as it currently stands - and which is, I will maintain, an excellent article, and whomever produced it deserves a resounding round of applause - contains no reference to Froome's work, which itself draws on the studies of Emma Wilby (2005), which have themselves been somewhat revolutionary in the study of Early Modern British witchcraft and folk magic. In order for this article to remain up-to-date with current thought on the subject, it must include reference to the work of Froome. Such is my reasoning, and I apologise if I came across as aggressive or disrespectful in any manner whilst adding this tag; it was not intentional. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for your explanation. I've ordered a copy of Froome's book and we'll see what it adds to the account given here. Malleus Fatuorum 16:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more than happy to help out with any additions; incidentally if you can add anything to Cunning folk in Britain, a page that I have created over the last year or so, I would be very grateful - I have very little knowledge of Scottish magical praxes, but you might. Best wishes, and sorry that our first meeting on Wikipedia was on such a negative issue. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Two heads are usually better than one, so I'd be very interested to see any suggestions you may have for what you think ought to be added. In general I've somewhat shied away from the magical aspects, especially of the Pendle Witches (and the Samlesbury Witches, who were tried at the same time, as it seems obvious to me that there was a very strong anti-Catholic element involved rather than any distaste for whatever it was that they were supposed to have done. Nevertheless I'll be very interested to see what Froome says when I get hold of her book, hopefully tomorrow, and perhaps she'll change my mind. One of the "problems" with the Pendle Witches, of course, is that although there are a great many books on them they all have to rely heavily on the contemporary account by Potts, without which we might never have heard of them at all. So far as tags are concerned I just hate them with a passion; much better to have this kind of conversation on the talk page. I don't know much about Scottish witches at all, but I'll happily take a look at your article on cunning folk. Malleus Fatuorum 16:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just collected my copy of Froome's book from the library, and I must say it's a great find, and not just for the Pendle witches. I think I'm going to enjoy reading it. Malleus Fatuorum 15:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reported in today's news: A developer discovering the top of what appeared to be a house called in United Nations archeologists to perform a dig, where they found a nearly completely preserved cottage from the time of the witch trials. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-16066680 71.50.18.238 (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is very relevant to the Pendle Hill article, but unless the cottage is established as Malkin Tower not to the Pendle witches. Malleus Fatuorum 00:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As Malleus says it's too speculative yet, and probably always will be, however, the story about the statue of Alice Nutter being commisioned linked on that page is more relevant. Richerman (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting link, we'll have to see if anything comes of the parish council's idea. So far as Malkin Tower (or not as is more likely the case) is concerned I've had to bow to the inevitable. There's a sentence been added now. Malleus Fatuorum 23:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This link is certainly relevant to the Barley, Lancashire article. But I don't know the exact location of the homes of the Demdyke and Chattox families, or the supposed location of Malkin Tower. Doesn't look like much of a tower, does it. And that tin of gypsy creams looks a bit stale too. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now added there. But may need a trim. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some digging and I think that site is about as likely to be the Malkin Tower as I am to be a witch! I'm almost positive that the site in question is here (53°51′54″N 2°16′15″W / 53.8651°N 2.2709°W / 53.8651; -2.2709). Using the painfull LCC Mario website (anyone suggest an alternative link to location), if you turn on the first edition OS maps in the Historic Info section you'll see that a building is marked there. Given that the BCC source mentions a 19th C range, I think it the very likely that this house was demolished during construction of the reservoir at the turn of the 20th C. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Froome (2010) seems pretty certain that the site of Malkin Tower is the the present-day site of Malkin Tower Farm. I think it's very unlikely that the original Malkin Tower survived until the 20th century, but I've been wondering for a while whether there might not be enough material to justify an stand-alone article on Malkin Tower. Malleus Fatuorum 22:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the introduction to the article, it mentions that "ten were found guilty and executed by hanging". No date is given for the executions.

In the section on the Lancaster Assizes, the trial of each "witch" is dealt with, and each mini subsection ends with ". . . was found guilty". The next section jumps straight to the book by Potts.

I think that before moving on to Potts, the article should report the death sentence and the execution. When were they hanged? Were the executions all carried out on the same date? Where did the hangings take place? Were there any special remarks made by the judge when sentencing them? (I have come across all this information before but don't have access to it at the moment.) Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 13:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No date is given in the lead, true, but it's all covered in the body of the article, which says :

Jennet Preston was the first to be tried, at York Assizes on 27 July 1612, where she was found guilty and subsequently hanged. Nine others – Alizon Device, Elizabeth Device, James Device, Anne Whittle, Anne Redferne, Alice Nutter, Katherine Hewitt, John Bulcock and Jane Bulcock – were found guilty and hanged at Gallows Hill in Lancaster on 20 August 1612.

Malleus Fatuorum 14:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Witchcraft Acts article says this: "The Acts of Elizabeth and James changed the law of witchcraft by making it a felony, thus removing the accused from the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts to the courts of common law". Even though this statement is currently uncited in that article, isn't it also relevant in this article, with regard to the means by which the Pendle witches were tried, i.e. at Assize courts rather than at Ecclesiastical courts? Alternatively, is the 1562 Act deemed irrelevant because it had been enacted 50 years before? It's also not entirely clear (from my reading of this section) how the religious and legal aspects of the background to this case were interelated. The religious backgound seems closely aligned with Lancashire's status as a Catholic sronghold, which presumably meant that witchcraft was tolerated less. But James I's postion seems to be somewhat at odds with this. Both Elizabeth's and James' Acts appear to have been intended to have a moderating influence. Or is this a glib mis-interpretation? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk)

I think it's a misreading of the facts; what the Protestant authorities regarded as witchcraft was in some respects an aspect of Catholicism, as many of the so-called "spells" were actually derived from Catholic prayers by a population denied access to priests since the Reformation. The point about the legal background is that James I's position on witchcraft may have been unclear to the judges, which is basically why they commissioned Potts to write an account of the trials. As for the Witchcraft Acts, why would anyone be expecting a 1612 witchcraft trial to be conducted in an ecclesiastical court? And if you think about it, the statement in the Witchcraft Acts article can't possibly be true. Malleus Fatuorum 21:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think many people reading this article would not even know what an ecclesiastical court was. But maybe they don't need to. If you are saying that the statement is not true, perhaps you should certainly take it out. Or at least add a tag? Why can it not be true? The explanation you have given about about Catholicism and witchcraft is just the kind of plain and simple summary that would really benefit that section of the article. As is the reason Potts was appointed. At the moment the section looks to me a bit dense and doesn't come up with any clear and concise conclusions. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be true because witchcraft became a felony either under Elizabeth or under James. And it's not up to the article to come to any conclusions about anything, simply to present the facts as neutrally as possible and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions, as you ought to know. But look, this article is an FA, and I'm getting a little tired at having to keep addressing all of these little details that to be honest don't matter a damn. Why not spend some time on getting the Witchcraft Acts article up to speed rather than trying to get on my tits? Malleus Fatuorum 22:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatically, yes. But I think it can be both James and Elizabeth if their separate Acts are seen as part of a single process. But if you know it's definitely wrong, you should be getting the Witchcraft Acts article in shape yourself. Full stops and commas in the wrong place don't matter a damn to some people, but fixing them still count as article improvements, even in FA articles. Yes, we a have a lovely list of facts here. It's like a puzzle - here are all the facts, in a big heap, but the significance of any one of them, in relation to all the others, must be guessed at. I am trying to add material which might make the religious and political context look clearer, but in a coherent way. But perhaps you thing that "coherence" is leading the witness. These questions are not just for you, though. They are for any editor who cares to answer. No one necessarily expects, needs or wants you to defend anything. I couldn't care less about your tits. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who says I should? You? I would suggest that you try cutting your teeth on the Witchcraft Acts article yourself; who knows, you may actually learn something from the experience. Malleus Fatuorum 23:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, who knows. A good fix. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But then I see from your Talk Page comment that my own assumption of good faith may have been also a little misguided and that a reappraisal might be required. I didn't realise that my efforts were quite so worthless or so deserving of ridicule and insult. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well you do now. Malleus Fatuorum 23:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing famous to infamous based on the dictionary definition of the word^[2]

in·fa·mous adjective /ˈinfəməs/ 

Well known for some bad quality or deed - an infamous war criminal

Wicked; abominable - the medical council disqualified him for infamous misconduct

(of a person) Deprived of all or some citizens' rights as a consequence of conviction for a serious crime

Phersh (talk) 06:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found a link with a review from this album which I earlier removed from the article: [3]. IMO, this isn't enough to warrant inclusion, but at any rate, here it is. Drmies (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned on the Malkin Tower talk page, I came across what looks like another primary source on the Pendle witches in a book I was working on at Wikisource, thought by the editors to have been written before they were executed in 1612. I notice that a number of other primary sources (on Project Gutenberg) are linked to, but if anyone would like to add this one too I wouldn't mind helping to proofread it. ‑‑xensyria^T 17:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The book can be read here but nothing in it that I can see seems to refer to the story of the 'witches' in this article. It talks about 'Mother Cuthbert' and 'her daughters Margery and Cicely' - none of whom are in this article. An interesting book though - there's even a paragraph or two on wife selling. Richerman (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks, I'd started to wonder at "Mother Cuthbert" after I posted this. Reading the editor's comment ("the Pendle Forest Witches form the burden of the story") a bit more closely, it seems he's supposing this was written about another group of "Pendle forest witches", not the "witches". Reading the tract more closely too, it comes across as an invented story (especially compared to the rest of the book) written to take advantage of an increased interest in the witches of the area (I guess caused by the trial). ‑‑xensyria^T 00:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried adding a reference to the Wardstone_Chronicles to the media references section but Eric Corbett undid the edit without any explanation. Why is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.25.193.161 (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because you added an unreferenced link to something that adds nothing to the understanding of the Pendle witches. J3Mrs (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basically because as well intentioned as your edit was, it didn't really advance the reader's understanding of the subject. While the Pendle Witches are certainly important to the Wardstone Chronicles, it isn't necessarily true to say that the relationship holds true the other way around. Parrot of Doom 17:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After doing some research, looks like Corbett is a known quantity. I'm again reminded of why contributing to Wikipedia is such a joyless endeavour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.25.193.161 (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your contributions [4] you seem to have a problem with filling in edit summaries yourself. Richerman (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed a joyless endeavour trying to keep trivia out of well-written articles. J3Mrs (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Richerman, J3Mrs, and others, after this warm reception I'm certain not to repeat my mistake of contributing for a long time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.25.193.161 (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention that Parrot of Doom's reply actually was nice, and made sense, I can buy that one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.25.193.161 (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In which case there was no need to make unpleasant comments about other editors was there? If you want a warm reception don't make snarky comments about others. Richerman (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Sharratt is not a notable author by Wikipedia standards, as she has no article. Does this make her 2010 book Daughters of the Witching Hill equally non-notable or unsuitable for inclusion in the "Literary adaptations and other media" section? The book seems to have had four reviews, all in reliable sources, quoted here. She does currently appear, with redlinks, at Hildegard of Bingen. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply trivia and/or promotion. Neither the author nor the book are notable and have not received significant coverage in reliable sources. SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No strong view. The hundreds of positive reviews at Goodreads suggested that at least the book had been read and was a popular modern story based on the trials. (The book apparently also has a foreword about the history and sources). But I guess those are ordinary readers, not literary critics, aren't they. Perhaps we should also "yank her out" of Hildegard? Or is she perhaps more notable when fictionalizing Saints? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Goodreads reviews are not reliable sources by any stretch of the imagination. Personally, yes, I would indeed "yank her out" of Hildegard and will do so in the morning (approx 12 hours from now UK time) if no one else has done so before then. SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "Wikipedia standard" for notability has nothing to do with whether or not Sharratt has an article, it's to do with her notability in the independent media. She may well meet WP's GNG for all I know, and if so feel free to write an article on her, but that's not the issue here; the issue is trivia in this article. Eric Corbett 22:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see. So what's the criterion for notability of a book in this article? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question is this: what light does it shed on our understanding of the Pendle witches? Eric Corbett 14:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any article that's got "Adaptations", "In Popular Culture", "Media appearances" etc etc is an absolute magnet for cruft and should be examined carefully to make sure the information is directly important and relevant for the reader to get a complete understanding on the topic (particularly important for an FA). Given the diffs I looked at, I think I'd agree that it's a "no" in this case. To give a rather facetious example, The Sun is notable enough for its own article, but if it ever ran a story on the Pendle witches, I would consider it as about as reliable as everything on Wikimedia Labs just working as designed without timing out randomly. (ooh, miaow) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So nothing to do with notablity of author or number of copies sold, then. Hmm, understanding in the same way that Cats "sheds light on our understanding of" Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats? Or in the same way I, Claudius helps us to "understand" the Emperor Claudius? I'm not sure that historical fiction is meant to be "reliable" in the same way as a newspaper reports of real events. I must admit that I had always assumed "Literary adaptations and other media" sections were more about providing evidence of the extent to which historical events or people had become "notable" in the popular consciousness at large. But I'm sure some people would argue strongly that an historical novel such as Sharratt's might give many people an insight or "understanding" of the psychological aspects of the events surrounding the Pendle witches. How does this book compare with Morrison's poems in shedding light, I wonder? Perhaps we'd need the printed opinion of a Pendle witch scholar? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then your understanding is faulty. Historical novels are fiction, not adaptations. Eric Corbett 16:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's always a hard distinction. And neither do others, e.g. Stephanie Merritt of The Guardian? I'm surprised that you see Morrison's poems as non-fiction. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It may surprise you even more then to learn that my preference would be to remove the whole damn section, and certainly not to add to it. Eric Corbett 17:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised in the least, as I suspect you think historical novels have no value at all. Maybe you'd be persuaded to mention William Harrison Ainsworth, as he has a rather fine wikipedia article. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's always dangerous to assume anything. The Ainsworth article isn't great, but it's one that Ottava Rima and I were working on; if you check the stats you'll see that I've made about 20% of the edits. And just look at The Lancashire Witches, an article I created and one day hope to be left in peace to finish. Eric Corbett 18:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just look. And I do hope you'll be able to do the Rest in peace, Eric. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your RIP comment is offensive. I have nothing more to say to you. Eric Corbett 19:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I refuse to reply. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our article has a number of differences from the BBC's documentary The Pendle Witch Child. I am not sure whether that programme, which I've just watched, counts as a reliable source (I suspect it often does, tho it's also often unclear which bits are the views of the documentary and which bits are just the views of one quoted expert), and I probably don't have easy access to other reliable sources (and I'm probably not sufficiently interested in the subject to wanr ro put a lot of errort into searching for such sources). So initially I'm just going to list some of the differences here to see what, if anything, others make of them before deciding whether I want to try to add any of them to the article myself or not:

• 1-We say James I was skeptical of evidence given at witchcraft trials. The BBC agrees but says this was a change of heart that first occured in 1616 (after 8 people were hanged on the evidence of a boy who later confessed to James that he had lied), which is 4 years after the Pendle executions.
• 2-The BBC says that unlike previous witchcraft trials which relied on earlier authorities, the Pendle trial relied almost exclusively on King James's Daemonologie, where 'it ticked all the boxes', including reliance on evidence by children, the witches' supposed use of figurines, and a 3rd item which I forget. We briefly mention the book, but give none of this detail.
• 3-The BBC claims Jennet Device quite likely died in Lancaster Gaol because she would be unlikely to find the money to pay for her food and lodgings there without which she couldn't be released. We make no mention of this reason (and it seems a very strange claim, being both insanely unfair and insanely expensive, as it would force goals to pay to lock up innocent paupers until they died, but then almost everything to do with witch trials seems insane so seeming insane doesn't necessarily make it untrue)
• 4-The BBC says the trial ultimately also helped produce the 19 executions at the Salem Witch trials of 1692, because Pendle's reliance on child witnesses as reported by Thomas Potts was approvingly mentioned in Michael Dalton's The Country Justice (1618), which in turn became a sort of legal Bible which was then used at Salem. We mention none of this.
• 5-We sometimes refer to the women as working as 'witches', but the BBC says that before the accusations against them they were not seen as 'witches' (supposedly evil people in league with The Devil, supposed practitioners of what would now be called bad or 'black' magic) but as 'cunning women' (healers/supposed practitioners of what would now be called good or 'white' magic), a term not found in our text, though we link to 'Cunning folk' in our 'See also' section.
• 6-If I remember right, the BBC says 2 of the hanged (Elizabeth Device and Anne Redferne) never admitted guilt at any stage (or perhaps never admitted guilt when about to be hanged) and that, unlike the others, Anne Redferne also never made any accusations against anybody.

CORRECTION:Martinevans123 has now viewed the documentary and says (below) that it should be Alice Nutter, not Anne Redferne. Clearly my memory is not the best. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 7-The BBC says Elizabeth Device began to scream when her daughter was brought to testify against her, but (if I remember right) unlike us makes no mention of her cursing her daughter. (Our only source for this must ultimately be Potts, who, at least in today's terms, is a superstitious nutcase who regards her as an evil witch in league with the Devil, so it seems very unfair of us to report this as if it were indisputable fact, rather than saying something like 'according to sources A, B, and C, but not X, Y, and Z, she cursed her daughter', or 'at least according to Potts, she cursed her daughter')

Tlhslobus (talk) 06:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to numbers these seven points for ease of reference? Are you suggesting the article should be called Pendle cunning women? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, for the numbering suggestion, Martinevans123 - I've now added numbers. And no, I'm not suggesting the article should be renamed (though I'd be prepared to at least listen to such an argument from somebody else, but I'd probably require a lot of convincing given that 'Pendle witches' is how they are generally known, and I suspect others would require even more convincing, so a consensus would be unlikely so the argument would probably just waste time). But an explanation of the 'cunning women not witches' view should presumably be included if deemed warranted by Reliable Sources, though I'm not 100% certain whether the BBC claim, by, I think, just one BBC 'expert' (though no contrary view was put) should count as a RS. And some of the sentences might then warrant having 'witch' replaced by 'cunning woman', perhaps to be decided on a case-by-case basis depending on what precisely a particular sentence is saying. However I'm a man, and given the proportion of people executed for witchcraft that were female (about 80%, I'm usually told), and given also that the BBC expert on 'cunning women' was also female, there are female/feminist aspects to such questions, for which I'd rather like to hear the views of a few women, particularly in the light of our gender equality policies. Tlhslobus (talk) 01:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(It might also help if someone living in the UK, or who can see the BBC programme by some other means, could check what exactly the BBC said before using it as an RS - I live in the Republic of Ireland, so I currently have to rely on my memory of what I just saw when it was retransmitted on BBC4, as I can't check the programme on BBC iPlayer; however it's perhaps available in whole or in part(s) somewhere else such as Youtube) Tlhslobus (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Definition of published it says " audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist." (my bolding). However, even if it you do find there is an archived copy such as as a dvd release (youtube copies often disappear without warning) I'm sure you will find great resistance to using a television programme as a reliable source for a featured article. Richerman (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Richerman. Even accepting, at least for the sake of argument, that the documentary is unacceptable as a RS, some (though not necessarily me) might want to argue that the fact that several academics seem to take a rather different view from our article may well imply at least the possibility that our article does not adequately reflect the range of Reliable Source views out there, thus arguably rendering its 'featured' status questionable, and/or requiring us to go looking for other RS views. But though I'm sufficiently interested to have brought the subject to the attention of other editors here, I'm not sure that I'm sufficiently interested to want to put in the effort to try to fix any of this myself, nor that I'm the right person to try even if I wanted to do so (as distinct from wishing others well if they want to try to do so themselves). Tlhslobus (talk) 04:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify the hour-long documentary was first broadcast, by BBC Four, on 17 August 2011. It was shown again yesterday, 28 October 2015, and thus is available for the next 28 days at iPlayer: [5]. If any article additions are made, it might be worth noting notable contributors, such as Prof Malcolm Gaskill, Dr Diane Purkiss, Prof Ronald Hutton or Dr Patricia Fara, by name.

The documentary takes quite a while to get going... approx timings for Tlhslobus' points above: 5. 4.20; 7. 27:00; 2. 33.40; 6. 36:50 (but it was Elizabeth and Alice Nutter); 4. 38.35 and 57.20; 1. 44:50; 3. 56.50.

I guess the documentary would be a good source for a separate article on Jennet Device, as that is its focus. But I think it covers enough of the trials in general that it could be at least mentioned in this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC) ooh, that Simon Armitage, he's sooo reet Northern, ain't 'e)[reply]

Thanks, Martinevans123. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the documentary is already briefly mentioned in our article, though it is not used as a source, and the discrepancies with our article are not mentioned. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that a very small additional amount of detail, describing the documentary, such as "which centres on child witness Jennet Device", might be useful and perfectly reasonable? That's quite apart from making any changes made in the light of the discrepancies. I'm particularly unsure about the description of Device "cursing" Jennet, if this is, as it seens, based soley on the account of Potts. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Martinevans123. Your suggested edit also sounds "useful and perfectly reasonable" to me, but I'm not sure that it's the one over which I'd want to risk an argument at this point in time, so I haven't attempted to defend it. Meanwhile 2 supplementary questions:

S1 - Can you please confirm that "(but it was Elizabeth and Alice Nutter)" means "(but it was Elizabeth Device and Alice Nutter)"? - (Martinevans123's reply, 09:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)): yes.

Thanks, Martinevans123. Tlhslobus (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

S2 - If it's not too much hard work, can you please indicate which academics are quoted in relation to points 1 to 7, and perhaps especially point 5 ("cunning women")? But if it's too much hassle, don't bother. - (Martinevans123's reply, 09:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)): will have another look, but feel free to watch again too!

Thanks, Martinevans123. As already mentioned, I can't have another look myself, as BBC iPlayer is not available in the Republic of Ireland.Tlhslobus (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 08:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right So you didn’t want just the five minute argument, but the full half hour? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Sorry, I don't want any argument at all, especially as I'm a nobody and therefore I expect the Spanish Inquisition, and, not being a masochist, I haven't enjoyed my previous experiences thereof. I also wanted to remove a possible ambiguity with S1 (as someone might later interpret your expression "Elizabeth and Alice Nutter" as possibly referring to someone called Elizabeth Nutter), and I also thought (with S2) that it might eventually prove helpful (for instance if someone is trying to look for other possible RSs) to know which academics were saying what, perhaps especially in relation to 'cunning women'. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have replied. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Martinevans123. Tlhslobus (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The academics/ presenter supporting the points above:

1. Malcolm Gaskill.
2. Ronald Hutton.
3. Simon Armitage.
4. Simon Armitage.
5. Malcolm Gaskill, Simon Armitage and Diane Purkiss.
6. Simon Armitage.
7. Simon Armitage

Additionally, the death of the pedlar John Law is explained as something that "could only be a stroke" by Dr Tony Rudd, Consultant Physician in Stroke Medicine (at Guy's and St Thomas'). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the great work, Martinevans123. And I see you have usefully corrected another of my memory errors, as you have Malcolm Gaskill (and not some female academic as I had incorrectly remembered above) explaining about "cunning women". Tlhslobus (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, in fact, you were quite right. Looking again I see that point 5 is explained/ expanded by Purkiss and Armitage, as well as by Gaskill. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Martinevans123. Tlhslobus (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pendle witches. 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/20080509061312/http://www.skiptonweb.co.uk/tourist/nearby_attractions/pendlehill.htm to http://www.skiptonweb.co.uk/tourist/nearby_attractions/pendlehill.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121003192429/http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/acs/sites/museums/themes/witches/index.asp?siteid=4200&pageid=17822&e=e to http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/acs/sites/museums/themes/witches/index.asp?siteid=4200&pageid=17822&e=e

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 15:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pendle witches. 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/20091125004231/http://www.lancastercastle.com/html/history/executions.php to http://www.lancastercastle.com/html/history/executions.php

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 20:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pendle witches. 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/20130921162507/http://www.chorltonartsfestival.com/event-type/music/ to http://www.chorltonartsfestival.com/event-type/music/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 10:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]