Talk:Salem witch trials

New Task Force

Hello!

Please check out a new task force dedicated to the Trials:

Salem Witch Trials task force

Deaths & Aftermath

The opening section should state the actual amount of executions and or imprisoned persons and how long they were sentenced for. Bunnyman78 (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Note on "Theocracy"

On 11 Aug 2008 I read this: i have a boner Despite reverence for the Bible and antipathy towards "Popery," the Puritans had established a type of theocracy akin to that of medieval Roman Catholicism, in which the church ruled in all civil matters, including that of administering capital punishment for violations of a spiritual nature.

As can be seen obviously from this, the pastors, although they wielded great influence over the courts, the courts were separate from the church. This is also the case in Calvin's Geneva, which would have been the basis for law in Massachusetts. I could provide specific references why this would be the belief of the Calvinistic Puritans, mainly from Calvin's Institutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.247.253 (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Psdubow 00:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

As pointed out in Wigmore's "Kaleidoscope of Justice," the so-called courts were devoid of lawyers, disregarded the common law rules of evidence, and were under the complete control of the clergy. The tragic episode of the Salem Witch Trials should serve as a permanent lesson of what happens when society disregards the rule of law and submits to religious tyranny and superstition. John Paul Parks (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

In the section "Religious Context," this struck me as odd: "Despite reverence for the Bible, the Puritans had established a type of theocracy, in which the church ruled in all civil matters..." I see now that the first part of this sentence was adapted from the first paragraph in this section. However, with the discussion of medieval Roman Catholicism omitted, I think "Despite" should be "Due to," or the entire phrase "Despite reverence for the Bible" should be omitted, and perhaps also "a type of."

I'll delete the phrases I mention and leave it to more experienced Wiki editors to look at my reasoning and decide what's best. Thanks! --Geekdiva (talk) 10:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have removed references to Massachusetts being a theocracy at the time. It wasn't. And I have cited sources, especially Rosenthal. If it had been a theocracy at the time most of the trials would not have taken place. The majority of ministers at the time were opposed to the trials. See the work of Hansen and Rosenthal especially. If you are going to claim that it was a theocracy, site your source, and spell it out. You won't be able to do so, because that was not the case. While the civil leaders were deeply religious, the clerics did not control the government and were ignored when it was convenient to do so. --173.59.232.26 (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

To Above, please recall that the afflicted all came from the household of a minister, Parris. When a Boston minister (Willard) was "called out" by one of the afflicted she was told she must be mistaken, i.e. he was untouchable. It's true that Phips ultimately put a stop to the trials (after his wife was called out) but Increase Mather had handpicked Phips for Governor and his son Cotton lobbied for the trials acting-Governor, his deputy, Stoughton. Whatever you suppose a "majority" of the ministers may have felt about the trials, you cannot deny that these two father-and-son ministers were influential to the extreme. Cotton Mather celebrates his own influence (albeit anonymously at first) in writing his Life of Phips and in his journals and many other writings, including those quoted at length by Calef and later Upham. The sources you cited are far-removed, revisionist, perhaps more mindful of being published than being accurate. Unlike Calef, your sources were not afraid of the return of more witch trials, so they could be flip and wide-eyed in their theorizing. Please go to the primary texts, including court documents, they are written in English and, once you get used to the odd capitalizations, easily understood. You seem to have a very narrow definition of theocracy, which is fine, but to continue spreading this wishful myth that the ministers were opposed to the trials is false. Juliegolden (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Historical importance?

I think the Salem witch trials are blown way out of preportion. Only 24 people died ... How many died from indian attacks and other causes during this time period? Everywhere I look on the Net for statistics showing proportional data like this just turns up tirades on the injustice of the event. I don't mean to minimize that aspect of it, but were the Salem Witch trials one of the most important events in early american history? I don't think so. --Nerd42 23:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

In terms of raw body count, you are right, it was insignificant in the larger picture. A bit like 9/11: a relatively small number of deaths in comparison with the background death rates. But like 9/11, the Salem witch trials had a disproportionate effect. Both were used as prime examples of how innocent lives could suddenly be taken away in an unexpected moment of madness. -- NeilFraser 15:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the trials were blown out of proportion at all. The Salem witch trials are a perfect example of how religion can undermine reason and logical thinking. It also shows how overly religious people acting in groups can be dangerous to society. If anything the trials should be more publicized, as they teach an important lesson.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.112.253 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 21 January 2007

No one in Salem was burnt at the stake (or even at the "steak"). All but Giles Corey were hanged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TEHodson (talk • contribs) 21:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Right! The Salem witch Trials were not something that was unimportant. Even though only 24 people died, they were 24 innocent people who were killed for odd reasons. Someone even told me that a woman was a "witch" for having seajures. So maybe only a few people got killed, but most people out of the 24 were killed in the most barbaric ways. Some examples are some people were burnt at the steak, many were hanged, and one man refused to take charges for being a witch and he was crushed to death by giant rocks and stones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.29.66.97 (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Charles Wentworth Upham writing from Salem in 1859 suggests that the trials were world famous and that one merely needed to mention "Salem" anywhere in the world for the trials to be brought up. Also, if you also consider that the framers of the Constitution came along less than 100 years after the trials, it seems fair to suggest that the trials demonstrated theocracy run amok, and the need for separation of Church and State. The framers didn't need to look to Europe for such a thing. Juliegolden (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Came across this quote from George Lincoln Burr, a careful, well-respected historian, and put it in the article. "More than once it has been said, too, that the Salem witchcraft was the rock on which the theocracy shattered." pg. 197. But I haven't yet found the quotes of those he is referring to. If anyone finds some, I'd love to see 'em. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliegolden (talk • contribs) 18:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The Salem Witch Trials also demonstrate how humans follow one another in a domino effect. The two girls started going into hysteria giving them attention, once they got the attention they started accusing people of dark magic or witchcraft. In Salem's history, magic was used often but was then turned backwards and reffered to as demonic and dark. Since everyone in Salem was very religious it was easy to send someone to jail or death when dark magic and possible conflict with the devil was involved. This only added to the tension in Salem and thus created the Salem Witch Trials which exemplifies, along with many other events in history, the domino effect that seems to come so easy to us.

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of January 21, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Yes

2. Factually accurate?: Historically accurate

3. Broad in coverage?: Yes

4. Neutral point of view?: A bit of working might be needed here, but with exception of a phrase here or there, it is NPOV.

5. Article stability? Stable enough, although it has been vandalized several times.

6. Images?: Well illustrated for this kind of topics. It should however be improved to include more pictures and images, books such as "The Crucible" could be of some help.

A nice piece of work. A bit of working and we have ourselves a Featured Article. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Λua∫Wise ^(talk) 11:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Factually accurate? Several issues with this article. Clearly anyone who gives this article a stamp of approval is not versed in Salem history. First thing that stuck out for me, Corey DID put in a plea. A plea of innocence. What he did NOT do is recognize their authority to prosecute him. Thus they pressed him to get him to admit such. The Corey put in no plea is one of the oldest misconceptions of the trials, amazing its still being propagated on a 'factually accurate' article. Next, and perhaps it is buried in there but I found trying to read this article painful. It reads and jumps topics like a bowl of convoluted text spaghetti. So if it is there something my bad, but I didn't off hand see the mention of the conservative vs the liberal movement in the puritan church. And the snowball effect that had on the country. As the separation of church vs state philosophy traces back to the Salem trials because of this. Several local historians wrote solid books on these issues I posted about in their Witch Trial books. I'd suggest you arm chair historians grab one. And finally, no I am not going to do the work so don't reply with 'why don't you fix it'. I won't because I frankly don't care enough about wikipedia. I just happened to stumble here and noticed these issues and thought someone who does care might want to know so they can be fixed. Good luck -Rev. Peter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.101 (talk) 05:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The good article status was awarded in 2008, as you can see at the moment the article is being reviewed to see if it is still matching the criteria. Thanks for your thoughts even if you do not care about wikipedia. Edmund Patrick – confer 21:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

My point was, it shouldn't have been given the status to START with. Its FACTUALLY INACCURATE now and thus I am sure it was in 2008. People writing about topics they are not versed in but pretending they are. Wikipedia in a nutshell. *sigh* -Rev. Peter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.101 (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

we both could if we wanted check the original text, me I am looking through this and learning whilst working on other articles, so will not have the time. The articles biggest weakness was lack of references, though of course being in print (and used as a reference) does not make it FACTUALLY ACCURATE. Edmund Patrick – confer 06:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Giles Cory DID put in a plea, a plea of innocence. What he did NOT do is recognize the courts authority to prosecute him and in fact elevated to the Gov because of such. It's a very involved topic but in a nutshell that is what happened. The article uses the folk lore version he didn't put in a plea. THAT IS FACTUALLY INACCURATE. So yes the article is INACCURATE. End of discussion. -Rev. Peter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.101 (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

end of conversation, I do hope not, a reference (not of course original research) and the article become more accurate and up to date with contemporary knowledge and research.Edmund Patrick – confer 20:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Rev. Peter, you say you're extremely well versed in this subject but don't want to do "our" work for us. Who is this "us" that you're referring to? Wikipedia is a communal work; the only way it improves is by knowledgeable people (like yourself) lending your expertise. There's no body of Wiki editors sitting in a room together, getting paid to write these articles. Someone writes out a rough draft of an entry (which is probably full of inaccuracies), and it's EVERYONE's job to read through and if we see something we know is wrong, CORRECT IT. If you aren't willing to chip in to make things better, what right do you have to complain?

If you don't like the page because it has factual inaccuracies, then make it accurate instead of lambasting others for not doing so. Wikipedia is not perfect, but it's constantly evolving and improving thanks to thousands of people's hard, thankless work. No one is more or less responsible for refining the rough aggregate of human knowledge, and if you aren't willing to do so, shut up and move aside for those who will. THAT'S Wikipedia in a nutshell. The Cap'n (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Rev. Peter if you think Wikipedia is bad, or not comprehensive enough, check out your old encyclopedia and see how little there is there, and how it also contains mistakes with no room at all for feedback. Admit it Brother, you so totally like Wikipedia! Juliegolden (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Invisible world?

The follow is in this article:

The Puritans believed in the existence of an invisible world inhabited by God and the angels, including the Devil (who was seen as a fallen angel) and his fellow demons. To Puritans, this invisible world was as real as the visible one around them.

How is this any different from modern christian belief? ie- heaven and hell? This either needs to be clarified (and referenced) or deleted. Russeasby (talk) 05:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm quite certain that we include information on the basis of its pertinence, and not whether it differs from the beliefs of present-day Christians. In any case, historians would tell you that the invisible world of the Puritans was more immediate and tangible than that of normal humans of the 21st century. Today, even Christians would be likely to believe the cow got sick because of disease rather than because Goody Howe sent a demon to it. - Nunh-huh 05:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Since you seem to have an understanding of the difference between the puritans invisible world compared to typical modern christianity, why dont you improve the article with your knowledge? Right now it does not make much sense to someone who is unfamiliar. As it reads now, its easy to think it was inserted as vandalism by someone making fun of christianity (invisible worlds...). The article should read in a way that an uninformed reader can understand it, by at least wikilinking to an article explaining it, or by explaining it inline. Russeasby (talk) 05:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If I were as convinced as you are that there needs to be further explanation, I would. But why would being similar to current Christian beliefs require an explanation? We want to explain Puritan beliefs, not explain the differences or similarities between Puritan beliefs and those of modern Christians. Anyway, I'll look for quotes that may better convey the sense that Puritans believed in the vital participation of the invisible world in day to day earthly affairs. The term is no doubt included in the article because of its resonance with Cotton Mather's book on the witch trials, Wonders of the Invisible World. - Nunh-huh 07:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I just read this article for the first time and the Invisible World section caught my attention as being somewhat misleading and led me here. Rather than being a comparison with modern Christianity, I read it as implying that Puritans were the only branch of Christianity at the time that believed in the Invisible World, or at least it implies they believed in it more. This is not true. Compare them to devout Catholics of the time, for example. I would suggest that the paragraph simply be changed to "Like other branches of Christianity, the Puritans believed...". I think this would satisfy all parties. Thanks! 76.185.81.142 (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Episcopal/Episcopalian under "Religious Context"

An Episcopalian is a person who is a member of the Episcopal Church. "Episcopalian" is a noun. The adjective form is "Episcopal" and is what should be used in the phrase "not to be confused with the Episcopalian Old North Church." As this article is semi-protected, I cannot fix it myself. Can someone else attend to this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.104.126 (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. By the way, I'm always happy to unprotect the article to allow an IP to edit, you just need to ask on my talk page. SpinningSpark 16:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization

I glanced through the archives looking for a discussion on whether or not Salem Witch Trials should be capitalized or not, but didn't see one. Historical events are oftentimes capitalized - Harlem Renaissance, Industrial Revolution, Scopes Trial. Of course, this is not always the case - Lincoln–Douglas debates of 1858, 1860 Oxford evolution debate, Burr–Hamilton duel. As far as I know, there is no hard-and-fast rule when it comes to this. Mind you, I'm not necessarily calling for the page to be moved, I just think it's a conversation worth having. Thoughts? faithless (^speak) 19:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Puritans

There was a factual innacuracy which became evident today when I checked a new edit. I did a quick cut and paste of the description of puritans from the article about Puritans and used it to correct the innacuracy. I have not yet researched the origin of this innacuracy in the history section. John5Russell3Finley (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"Puritans" is a broad term for the ultra-fundamentalist Protestant sects whose form of worship was derived from Calvinism and the teachings of Martin Luther, beginning, informally, under Henry VIII. The Church of England was also Protestant, which is why this is important. To not make this clear makes it seem as though the Church of England is Catholic. The emmigrants to the New World were much more motivated by political problems (Royalists vs. Parliamentarians) than by religious ones, though writers of American history have often re-cast this into the more sympathetic sounding "fleeing religious persecution" story, rather than the more accurate "they were on the losing side of the civil war in England, after having executed their King 11 years earlier" story. I think this clarification is necessary. TEHodson 21:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I further clarified that the Puritan movement rose concurrently with Henry's baby Church of England, and what its idealogical basis was. It wasn't an internal struggle of people breaking away from the Church of England, which was in process and had no "traditions" as of yet, but rather a struggle against its very existence and authority in their lives. During these chaotic years of schism in England the Puritans emerged in England, as did the Presbyterians in Scotland. Elizabeth I cemented the Church of England's authority during her lifetime and did not permit open worship in any other form, but neither did she actively seek it out and persecute either Catholics or more radical Protestants. It was during the next century that the movements became so politicised as to lead to actual civil war, and it was during this time that most of the Colonists took their leave of England. I think all of this detail (which hasn't made the paragraph longer, just more accurate) is important because it explains why here in Mass. Colony people were so fanatical and comfortable with assuming power within the community. They were fighters for their beliefs before they came here, believed utterly in the absolute truth of biblical teachings, and were therefore especially vulnerable to any threats to their existence as pure creatures of God. TEHodson 21:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I finally had a chance to go to the Puritan page, and so I see why you wanted it to match what they wrote there, but what they wrote isn't really correct, either. The Puritan movement in England began shortly after Martin Luther's 95 Theses was printed in 1519, though it took a long time for his message to reach the greater public. It was purely coincidental that Henry should break from the Catholic Church at roughly the same time, leaving a vaccum into which many different ideas poured. Under Elizabeth in the 1580's, Puritan pressure was strong, then was successfully subdued to become background noise, but that didn't mean their leaders then joined the Anglican Church. The truth is, trying to disentangle the multitude of religious, political, and social threads in England at this time is pretty difficult, if not impossible, but this is, of course, why those of us who read about it are so fascinated. If you think this page should match theirs, then change it back, but I think it would be better to work on the Puritan page instead. TEHodson 00:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TEHodson (talk • contribs)

The preceding discussion occured concerning the Religious Context section of the instant article. Personally I think that discussion of the religious aspects could be happily limited to those occuring between 1620 and 1708 in the area LDS calls British North America. We didn't do that here. I can't fix it, but I understand that the original writers had a purpose to what they did and will attempt to stick with their plans. My own thought is that we need to talk a lot more about the actual people who were involved in the actual ocurrences of 1692 and their experiences before and after. In furtherance of this I support the idea of putting easily separable things (like the biographies of individuals) into their own linked articles. I think adding a lot of European History from the preceding 2 Centuries is to overburden this article especially when all the stuff we were talking about could all be happily included in the linked article about Puritanism.John5Russell3Finley (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Once again I have re-written the opening paragraph of "Religious Context" as it had become hopelessly inaccurate, poorly written, and full of nonsense such as "unlike in the U.S. today..." as though that is relevant or important. This is an historical article--obviously things were different then. Do we write "Unlike in the U.S. today, where people ride around in cars, people in 16th century England rode around on horses."? Please, Finley, leave this paragraph alone now and concentrate on the one following it, which makes no sense whatsoever. As I have no idea what it is intended to convey, however, I am unable to repair it.--TEHodson 00:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)--TEHodson 22:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Social Context

Where did Wikipedia get the idea for this section? There are no citations anywhere even though the contents are questionable. It think this section should be erased because there's nothing that supports this section. I mean who got the idea that the Puritans think that women supposed to be subservient to men and thus were more likely to work with the devil. Even if the former is true, doesn't mean it leads to the latter. It's a non sequitur, plain and simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.250.244.227 (talk) 05:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally when I read this section much of it is probably feminist propaganda. Some of the assertions seem weak and that may harm the article. Looking at the list of books I think it seems like something from Demos. This is not a new article and has undergone some style changes. It predates some of the new citation preferences: so, it may be that during a rewrite the source (which in those days was rarely "in line") got moved into what was once titled the "further reading section". I will look around for a couple of days and get some sources. I have read this stuff before in more than one feminist diatribe masquerading as an article about Early American Social History. One thought is that we could present much of this under a secondary title like modern scholarship or modern perspectives in feminist thought. The trials are realy very important to this area of modern and feminist thought. So, maybe... rather than removing this section, we could think about expanding it, perhaps quite a bit.John5Russell3Finley (talk) 23:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The section is faulty, but not because of anything that relates to John5Russell3Finley's hysterical woman fear. (And his personal issues are his to deal with.) This part is probably correct: "In an age where the philosophy 'children should be seen and not heard' was taken at face value, children were at the bottom of the social ladder. Toys and games were seen as idle and playing was discouraged. Girls had additional restrictions placed upon them and were trained from a young age to spin yarn, cook, sew, weave, serve their husbands and bear their children, while boys were able to go hunting, fishing, exploring in the forest, and often became apprentices to carpenters and smiths." But this is not unique to this region. It was true everywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 08:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Today, I rewrote the section and removed some extraneous "preachy type matter", while still leaving the feminist tone. Clearly whomever is objecting here was not opposed to the hyper feminist tone, even though I don't see it as a useful analysis here. I think the source is Demos, but it may be a week before I can find an in line cite, and if enough people dislike the feminist tone perhaps we can remove the bias from it completely. John5Russell3Finley (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

In the first paragraph of the "religious context" section, the last line reads "In England, the Puritan party was not merely a religious one, but was also a very actively political one, and their reasons for leaving England were often political in nature, rather than merely idealogical religiously." Either replace 'idealogical religiously' with 'ideological', or 'religious', but not both. Also, "very actively political one" would be better written "very active political party". Since this article is presently semi-protected, these changes will have to be done by an admin. Roothroo (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you don't need an admin, any confirmed user can edit a semi-protected article. I have just confirmed your account so you should now be able to edit; surprising that you have not made enough edits to become auto-confirmed given how old your account is. SpinningSpark 15:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Today I rewrote the offending passage, and added some clarification. John5Russell3Finley (talk) 12:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

GA

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of January 21, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Yes

2. Factually accurate?: Historically accurate

3. Broad in coverage?: Yes

4. Neutral point of view?: A bit of working might be needed here, but with exception of a phrase here or there, it is NPOV.

5. Article stability? Stable enough, although it has been vandalized several times.

6. Images?: Well illustrated for this kind of topics. It should however be improved to include more pictures and images, books such as "The Crucible" could be of some help.

A nice piece of work. A bit of working and we have ourselves a Featured Article. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Λua∫Wise ^(talk) 11:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Local context re-write help

I have re-written the Local Context section, correcting the date of the Salem Village church independence and expanding and cleaning, etc., using Marion Starkey's "The Devil in Mass" as a reference. I somehow have forgotten how to put in the reference citation and couldn't get the "help" directions to work. So I typed in (Marion Starkey) and have asked SpinningSpark for help in fixing this, but if someone else gets here first, please do so and I'll look at what you did to figure out where I went wrong. I left what I had written so as not to lose it, but I won't go on until I get help with this. Thank you. --TEHodson 22:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The referencing in this article is a mess, so I've made a suggestion as to how it might be improved, with a few examples. All you need to do is to add your page number(s) to the {{Harvnb}} template I've added. Malleus Fatuorum 23:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Malleus Angelus (or should it be Angelus Fatuorum?), thank you! I went back to work, and will keep going. I do want this article to be decent, at least. Any more suggestions, please pipe up! --TEHodson 00:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Remove "Social Context"?

This brief section says nothing of value, and is unreferenced. I've expanded the Local Context section. Can we get rid of Social Context? There was no separate social context anyway, as the entire social structure was based on the religious and was quite specifically "local." How women were considered second-class citizens is actually part of the religious background, as scripture states quite clearly that women are women are under their husband's rule, just as men are under Christ's. (This isn't "feminist propaganda" as someone stated, but fact.) I think we can sort of pull all of this together, perhaps by making a section called "Local Social Context." Thoughts?

Oh, and is it getting any better? I'm going at it one bit at a time. Feedback would be gratefully received. --TEHodson 00:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Some of the sources have mentioned that the wars with Indians in near colonies may have raised the levels of tensions in the entire area, so I'm guessing that there could be some sort of "social context," and the book The Devil in the Shape of a Woman discussed this sort of matter as its main point, I think. Reviewing the recent changes to the article next. John Carter (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Definite improvement. Good work. John Carter (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The recent changes have been helpful. I would definitely endorse a combining of many of the "context" sections, most of which are overlapping. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 23:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive feedback, as well as the suggestions for cleaning up the whole "context" section of the article. I will make a concerted effort to combine those into one coherent narrative. There's not really that much to say, but what there is to say has to weave in a number of different factors (which I imagine was the reason for trying to take those factors one at a time). You're right, John, about the Indian tensions at the time. I will come back over the next few of days and see what I can do with this (I'm not going onto anything else until this is nice and tight), focusing on clarity and a more graceful style overall. Please come back start of next week and let me know what you think. I appreciate the support. I could use some help with putting in citations and references--I am not entirely sure I know how to do this (technically, I mean). Malleus Fatuorum was helping me. I'll shout if I run into trouble. --TEHodson 06:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the local and social context sections need to be greatly expanded. There is ton of detail in the article about the accusations and legal proceedings. But it is difficult to understand the hysteria without a better understanding of how and why the whole thing erupted in the first place. There were many factors including prior witch hysterias in Mass. Bay Colony, usage of mutilations and capital punishments in Mass. Bay Colony while not tolerated in Plymouth Colony, fear of the political uncertainties and the security of their land titles after the revocation of the Charter, fear of the Crown enforced merger with Plymouth Colony, fears of the endless wilderness surrounding them, the oppressive nature of the Puritan religion which was so different from the more free wheeling life in Plymouth Colony. It also needs to be explained that the conditions applied to the northern part of Massachusetts but not to the southern part of Massachusetts, which was a separate colony. I'm just listing a few factors, but there were many factors and they should at least be included in a more expanded section or sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.27.57 (talk) 05:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I also think there needs to be included a section on how the hysteria and trials were brought to an end. As I recall it was all brought to an end by the closure of the Court of Oyer and Terminer. This occurred right after witch accusations were made against the wife of one of the main men involved in the witch trials. I don't recall which man off the top of my head, but it may have been Cotton Mather. I would research this and add it in, but the article is locked. So I would just like to suggest that the ending of the hysteria be addressed. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.27.57 (talk) 05:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

poo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.171.174 (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

King William's War

The importance of this was that the conflict happened during the same time but yet there is hardly any mention in the main subject. I would like to expand on this such as the various Indian atrocities that took part. Foob (talk) 01:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Remove or clarify entry on Earlier Executions

I propose that this :

Earlier executions for witchcraft in New England Historian Clarence F. Jewett included a list of other people executed in New England in The Memorial History of Boston: Including Suffolk County, Massachusetts 1630–1880 (Ticknor and Company, 1881). He wrote,

The following is the list of the 12 persons who were executed for witchcraft in New England before 1692, when 24 other persons were executed at Salem, whose names are well known. It is possible that the list is not complete ; but I have included all of which I have any knowledge, and with such details as to names and dates as could be ascertained : — 1647, — "Woman of Windsor," Connecticut (name unknown)[later identified as Alice Young], at Hartford. 1648, — Margaret Jones, of Charlestown, at Boston. 1648,— Mary Johnson, at Hartford. 1650? — Henry Lake's wife, of Dorchester. 1650?—Mrs. Kendall, of Cambridge. 1651, — Mary Parsons, of Springfield, at Boston. 1651, — Goodwife Bassett, at Fairfield, Conn. 1653,—Goodwife Knap, at Hartford. 1656, — Ann Hibbins, at Boston. 1662, — Goodman Greensmith, at Hartford. 1662,— Goodwife Greensmith, at Hartford. 1688,— Goody Glover, at Boston."[6]

should be removed or clarified.

The reason that this entry should be removed is that it contains false information: "— Mary Parsons, of Springfield, at Boston. 1651," This information is false.There were two Mary parsons of Springfield who were accused of being witches, they were Mary Bliss who married Joseph Parsons, and Mary Lewis who married Hugh Parsons. Both women were accused and acquitted of witchcraft. Mary (Lewis) Parsons however still faced the charge of murdering her child and would have been executed but died in prison before it could be carried out. No one named Mary Parsons was ever executed for witchcraft. For the above mentioned reasons this entry should be removed or altered, since it is spreads false information. - Ken — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.239.38 (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

First og Third?

"Sometime in 1692, minister of the First Church in Boston, Samuel Willard"... His own article state that he was a priest of "The Third Church in Boston, from 1678 until his death". Both statement can not be true. --Finn Bjørklid (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it was Third Church. Good catch! Tdslk (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 December 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} In the very first sentence, note this phrase:

"The Salem witch trials were a series of hearings before county court trials..."

It is unclear to me what is being said here. The term "before" can be interpreted 2 ways. A hearing can be held "before" a judge or court. In that usage it means the hearing is happening (or happened) in that venue. In this case it seems like the author is saying the hearings were held "before" county court trials existed.

99.195.145.40 (talk) 03:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair point. I personally read it meaning that the hearing happened in that venue. I'll mark it with {{clarify}} for now. →Στc. 06:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

"Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".  Chzz  ►  07:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

nothing about "damned..." ??

nothing at all about "damned if you do, damned if you don't" ?? 84.227.53.173 (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Robert Calef

I disagree with this line "Robert Calef, a merchant in Boston and long-time public adversary of Cotton Mather". Calef spent 1693-1697 collecting info for his book and corresponding with Mather, but there is no evidence that the two were enemies prior to their disagreement on Margaret Rule and Salem witch trials. It seems WF Poole was the first to suggest, in 1869, that they were personal enemies and "suggest" is all: "Without discussing the character and motives of Calef..." He did not follow up or substantiate. Here is C.W. Upham on Calef: "Although zealously devoted to the work of exposing the enormities connected with the witchcraft prosecutions, there is no ground to dispute the veracity of Calef as to matters of fact." George Lincoln Burr dug deep into the historical record for information on the man and concludes "...that he had else any grievance against the Mathers or their colleagues there is no reason to think." Burr finds that a comparison between Calef's work and original documents in the historical record collections "testify to the care and exactness..." So this seems like saying MLK was the "long-time public adversary of George Wallace", it displaces emphasis from the issues to the men. I've seen Calef mischaracterized like this on several wikipedia pages. As if he and Mather fought over the same woman, or debts, or commission, or so. As if they were famous rivals like Bernini and Borromini. Planning to edit this and add links. If you disagree please say so here BUT also please do read/have read the words of all concerned-- Calef, Upham, Poole, Brattle, Burr, and especially Cotton Mather's own Wonders of the Invisible World from the autumn of 1692 and his Few Remarks on a Scandalous Book. --Juliegolden (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Better analogy: like introducing Bob Woodward as the "personal enemy" or "longtime public adversary" of Nixon. --Juliegolden (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

NPOV in first three "witches"

I read through the individual pages for the first three "witches." The summaries on this page are not very good. For example, motives are ascribed, but they don't seem to be verifiable and are not cited (e.g., "She was accused of witchcraft because of her appalling reputation." and "she was accused of witchcraft because the puritans believed that Osborne had her own self-interests in mind for she had remarried"). If these were cited, that would be one thing; but it seems like an extreme over-simplification. 216.139.3.22 (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 September 2012

Mary Bradbury is mentioned towards the middle of the article in the sentence "Aged Mary Bradbury escaped." Her name can be hyper-linked to her article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Bradbury Thanks!

MBBailey (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Done Thanks for the suggestion, I have implemented the change as proposed. I also hope that you don't mind, but I've removed some spaces from the beginning of your comment – leading spaces remove formatting from your comment, causing it to stretch the talk page widthways. Michael Anon 18:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

International impact?

Should there be a section about how these trials have shaped the view the rest of the world holds of he US and its society even until today? ♆ CUSH ♆ 06:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

On one hand, it should be pretty good, if it exists at all. Probably better handled than anything they had in Europe. So the first thing a foreign reader should have in his/her hand is how witches were treated in his/her country. Probably not very well, and for a much longer period of time.

The negative publicity pretty much stopped witch trials in their tracks in the US. So the US had the fewest deaths for witchcraft per 100,000.

On the other hand, the "pre-trial" was mis-handled by amateurs (the pros were in Boston and would not have let it happen). That is, the witnesses were "exposed" to the defendants and their reaction was allowed as new evidence against the defendants. This should not have been allowed by the legal standards of the day.

It would have been truly stupid to allow people to wander about who could negatively affect people from a distance. We believe stuff today that people will laugh at 300 years from now. So that part should not be important in itself to a discussion considering opinion "abroad." Student7 (talk) 13:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't have any effect on how people viewed the US, since the US didn't exist in 1692. Massachusetts was an English colony, and therefore a part of England at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.87.110 (talk) 05:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Parsonage Photo

The photo of the parsonage in Salem Village here cannot actually be the parsonage. Per a Virginia University historical site here, the house was torn down in 1784, so this picture from 1892 must be of another building. I have checked the Google Books version of Witchcraft Illustrated but have had no luck finding this photo. Am asking user Ogram who uploaded the photo for more info. Clockster (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 August 2013

Please change: Formal prosecution: The Court of Oyer and Terminer section

From: - - - - - - - She went to trial the same day and was found guilty. On June 3, the grand jury endorsed indictments against Rebecca Nurse and John Willard, but it is not clear why they did not go to trial immediately as well.

To: - - - - - - - She went to trial the same day and was found guilty. On June 3, the grand jury endorsed indictments against Rebecca Nurse and John Willard, however one Rebecca Nourse, on trial as a witch, produced a paper signed by several "respectable inhabitants" of Salem, among whom was Samuel Abbe. This document as to her good character caused her to be set at liberty but the sentence was later changed for some reason and she was put to death as a witch. Samuel Abbe was living in Salem during the days of witchcraft and was one of those opposed to its fanaticisms. Only a few years ago a monument to her memory was erected by her descendants. Samuel Abbe(married to Mary Knowlton) was the son of John Abbey (b1613 Northants England) who emigrated to America in the Pilgrim Ship Bonaventure Apr 1634. He married Mary Loring in Salem in 1635 and died in Wenham Massachusetts 1690. Samuel and Mary Abbey had seven children John 1636-1700, Sarah 1638, Marah 1612, Samuel 1646-1698, Rebecca 1747-1704, Edadiah 1650-1732 and Thomas 1656-1728) Samuel and Mary Abbey were however witnesses in a witch trial in Salem in 1692 against Sarah Snow (Good)a woman of vicious temper who had lived in their home for a time but was dismissed on account of her disagreeable ways. She vowed vengeance upon them and when several of their cows and hogs were taken sick, the blame was laid to her as a witch. The following are taken from Records of Salem Witchcraft, copied from the original documents, Volume 1, pages 24 and 25. Samuel Abbey Et ux vs. Sarah Good Samuel Abbey of Salem Village Aged 45 years or thereabouts and Mary Abbey his wife aged 38 years or thereabouts, Deposeth and saith. That about this Time Three Years past Wm Good and his wife Sarah Good being destitute of a house to dwell in these Deponents out of Charity; they being Poor lett them live in theirs some time untill that the said Sarah Good was of so Turbulant a Sperritt, Spitefull and so Mallitiously bent, that these Deponents could not suffer her to Live in their howse any Longer and was forced for Quiettness sake to turne she ye said Sarah with her husband out of their howse ever since, which is about two years 1/2 agone, the said Sarah Good hath carried it very Spitefully and Mallitiously, towards them, the winter following after the said Sarah was gone from our house we began to Loose Cattle and Lost several after an vnvsall manner, in a drupeing condition (sic) Condition and yett they would Eate: and your Deponents have Lost after that manner 17 head of Cattle within this two years besides Sheep and Hoggs, and both doe believe they Dyed by witchcraft, the said William Good on the last of May was twelve months went home to his wife the sd Sarah Good and told her, what a sad Accident had fallen out, she asked what, he answered that his neighbovr Abbey had lost two Cowes, both dyeing within halfe an hower of one another, the sd Sarah good said she did not care if he the said Abbey had Lost all the Cattle he had as ye said Jno Good told vs. Just that very Day that the said Sarah Good was taken up, we yr Deponents had a Cow that could not rise alone, but since presently after she was taken up, the said Cow was well and could rise so well as if she had ailed nothing. She the said Sarah good ever since these Deponents turned her out of their howse she hath behaved herselfe very crossely and mallitiously to them and their Children calling their Children vile names and hath threatened them often. Jurat in Curia. Warrant for Sarah Good was given at Salem, February 29, 1691-2, in response to complaints of Sarah Vibber, Abigail Williams, Elizabeth Hubbard, Ann Putnam, and Jno. Vibber. Among the many depositions in witness to her malign practices were those of Samuel Abbey and wife. Samuel and Mary Abby gave further evidence in respect of Merey Lewis Records of Salem Witchcraft, copied from the original documents, Vol. 2, pp. 41-2, old series. Lewis and Esty: Samuel Abbey testifies as to Merey Lewis, May 20, 1692, she being at the house of her neighbor, John Putnam, jr., and accused of witchcraft. Samuel Abby v. Mary Easty The Deposition of Samuel Abby aged about 45 years who testifieth and saith that on the 20th of May 1692 I went to the house of Constable Jno putnam about 9 a clock in the morning and when J came there: Mircy lewes lay on the bed in a sad condition and continuing speachless for about an hour: the man not being at whom: the woman desired me to goe to Tho: putnams to bring Ann putnam to se if she could se who it was that hurt Mircy lewes: accordingly J went: and found Abigail williams along with Ann putnam and brought them both to se mercy lewes: and as they ware a goeing along the way both of them said that they saw the Apperishtion of Goody Estick and said it was the same woman that was sent whom the other day: and said also that they saw the Apperishtion of the other woman that appered with gooddy Estick the other day, and both of them allso said that the Apperishtion of gooddy Estick tould them that now she was afflecting of mircy lewes and when they came to Mircy lewes both of them said that they saw the Apperishtion of gooddy Estick and Jno willard and Mary witheridge afflecting the body of mircy lewes: and J continueing along with mircy who contineued in a sad condition the greatest part of the day being in such tortors as no toungue can express; but not able to spake: but at last said Deare lord Received my soule and againe said lord let them not kill me quitt, but at last she came to hir self for a little whille and was very sensable and then she said that goody estick said she would kill hir before midnight because she did not cleare hir so as the Rest did, then againe presently she fell very bad and cried out pray for the salvation of my soule for they will kill me. Jurat in Curia Sepr 9th '92

References: Records of Salem Witchcraft, copied from the original documents, Volume 1, pages 24 and 25. Records of Salem Witchcraft, copied from the original documents, Vol. 2, pp. 41-2 (old series) also http://ntgen.tripod.com/bw/witchcraft.html also http://softsel.com/ancestry/abbey-usa.pdf Genejumbler (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Refused. This is way too much detail for a relatively small point. If you can rephrase your requested addition into about three sentences, it may be reconsidered. Magic♪piano 22:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Good refs

• U of Virginia
  • highly praised here: in jstor, I can email this to anyone interested. PumpkinSky talk 21:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • From Burr this PumpkinSky talk 21:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • One more: this PumpkinSky talk 21:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Religious Context

I noticed that someone added a "not in citation given" for a statement about the schooling of children in Salem. I checked the source and verified that it does verify the claim with the exception of the word "only" though it could be implied. Here's what Jackson says on page 9 of her book:

• Although many of the original settlers had been educated people, the education which the children received in Salem Village was not very thorough. It was believed that so long as the children were taught correct religious doctrine they would grow up to be good citizens. Their teaching, of course, was from the Bible, and the children were told over and over again that only the greatest piety would save them from eternal damnation."

So I'm adjusting the previous text saying "The only schooling for children was in religious doctrine and the Bible..." to "The education children received was not very thorough. The villagers focused on teaching them religious doctrine from the Bible believing that only the greatest piety would save them from eternal damnation."-Scoobydunk (talk) 01:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for looking that up! I rephrased the sentence so that it did not match the source quite so closely, and added in the citation. Tdslk (talk) 02:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to throw a fit over it, but I do believe my addition was appropriately paraphrased. Also, the source doesn't need to be added at the end of every sentence. The source for this information is already noted at the end of the next sentence.-Scoobydunk (talk) 03:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The boundary between appropriate rephrasing and close paraphrasing is not always super clear, so I figured I'd change the text a little bit more to be safe. As for the citation, it was to a different page in the same book, so I thought I would include it separately. Anyway, both of these things are pretty minor, I'm just explaining why I chose to do what I did. Tdslk (talk) 03:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The subjective adjective "limited" should really be removed. It is WP:POV. The children received a typical education for colonists. If you have the number of "years" they studied (six at most, I would guess), that could go there.

But the adjective "limited" imposing our ideas of what a good education would be upon a colonial society 300 years ago seems a tad ambitious. They were bent on surviving by agricultural good luck, good weather, and a couple of pounds under the mattress. Their children probably didn't need a course in "civics" or "comparative philosophy." Nor could they keep their children from working for that length of time. They needed their labor! Student7 (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Even for education possibilities of the time, it was limited. Their children would indeed have needed courses in "civics" or "comparative philosophy." An education focused on religion is by definition limited, if it can be called education at all. These people were deliberately raised to become bigots. ♆ CUSH ♆

There is a comic strip Calvin and Hobbes in which Calvin decides that the total point of evolution was to produce him. This, as someone once observed, is "chronocentric;" assuming one's own era has reached the pinnacle of achievement, both academically, and otherwise. If it were not for Puritans and their other contemporaries, we would not be receiving the education we do today (whether we are at the "acme" of achievement or not).

Most children in the world of that day could not read. Neither could most adults. Salem children could read. QED, they were "well-educated" by the standards of the time. Because I dislike adjectives, I think I would omit "well-educated."

Automatically assuming that teaching the Christian bible (or any other scripture) is "bigotry," seems pov IMO. Student7 (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Also the salem witch trials were held in 1692. Many people were accused and 20 died. Men were also accused during that time period. One of the victims was bridget bishop, who died that year on june 10th. The ways they died were either they got hung, they were tied to a tree while they were being burned, or were crushed to death by rocks like for example Giles corey was crushed to death by rocks.Here are some victims that were accused and died,Rebecca nurse,Sarah good,Susannah martin,Elizabeth how,Sarah Wildes,George burroughs,Martha carrier,John willard,George jacobs,sr.,John proctor,Martha corey,Mary eastey,Ann pudeator,Alice parker,Mary parker,Wilmott redd,Margret scott,Samuel wardwell,Sarah osborn,Roger toothaker,Ann foster, and last but not least Lyndia Dustin. THe place where all the witchs that were hung was gallows hill. Some people say the witchs haunt the house were three witchs were held, but to this day no one knows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.177.213.142 (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Tituba

Under Timeline Initial Events, the identifier "an African slave" needs to be removed after Tituba. Tituba's ethnicity continues to be debated, but she almost certainly was not an African slave, in the sense of a slave captured in Africa and brought to New England. I'd at least delete the appositive, especially since the debates around her ethnicity are mentioned under Witch Cake. Also, her name can be hyperlinked to her wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tituba.Gjilchrist (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Gjilchrist

Good point, but she was definitely not of European descent either. I substituted "non-white", trying to keep it simple. Student7 (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)