Talk:Pendle witches

This article uses British English, international date formatting, and does not use autoformatting on dates.

Another novel for the bibilography?

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)

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.

Mist Over Pendle

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)

Rewrite

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)

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)

Merge with The Pendle Witches

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

My GA Review of this article

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.

Superfluous suggestions

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

Conclusion

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)

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)

Pass to GA

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

Most Haunted

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Demdike

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)

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)

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

Missing reference

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)

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

Lack of skepticism

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Wikilinks

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)

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)

fewer than 500 witches

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)