Talk:North Berwick Harbour

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

"Pagan lore"[edit]

"Pagan lore holds that on Halloween 1590, Satan himself attended a coven on the Auld Kirk Green, and this event became a key focus of the North Berwick Witch Trials."

Sorry, but this looks like nonsense. For a start you appear to have conflated paganism and Satanism. Satan is a figure from Christian mythology and you would be hard-pressed to find a pagan who believed in his existence. The attribution of Satanic beliefs or practices to those who might be accurately described, or describe themselves, as "pagan" is one made by Christians and others, so pagan lore wouldn't hold that Satan had attended a coven, although mainstream town folklore might well do. Furthermore the fact is uncited. You give a reference at the bottom of the page to a website including this page about Auld Kirk Green, which has a couple of relevant paragraphs. It says nothing about "pagan lore". On a cursory inspection that website gives no references to printed sources and I for one feel reason to doubt its reliability as a source for a decent encylopaedia article. In any case the bit about "pagan lore" appears to be your own invention and is not only a slur on those, past and present, holding pagan beliefs; it's also a glaring error which jumps out at anyone familiar with the (rather massive) distinction between pagan and Satanic belief and practice. Thanks for your time. Anne 15:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, can I ask that you sign your posts on talk and discussion pages by inserting 4 tilde symbols (~~~~) rather than typing your "name". This will leave your hyperlinked user name (or IP address if you are not logged in) and the time when you save the page.
Secondly, a fundamental aspect of editing on Wikipedia is that you should "be bold" (WP:BOLD). If you see errors in this page, please correct them. As you can imagine, my interest in this stems from a local history, rather than a religious perspective. "Did you know" is only for very new articles and as such it can be reasonably expected that they contain errors. I will edit the references to Paganism. If you find evidence that other information in the piece in unfounded, please correct it. I do not share your doubts over the credibility of the source, but I will endeavour to find other references. Thanks. Deizio 16:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt reply. I signed with my name and the time because this strikes me as being far more helpful than an IP address, so perhaps Wikipedia dogma is getting the better of you: anyone who fails to sign with four tildes is immediately at fault. I did not correct the error because I have no knowledge of the facts and no reliable sources to hand. The statement in the article merely struck me as being very questionable so I tagged it as such and queried it on the talk page. I can't help but shake my head in despair at your attitude towards "Did you know". You shouldn't create an article or make an edit unless you're reasonably sure you are not introducing errors. What use is the "Did you know" facility if it only serves to bombard the reader with statements of doubtful validity that have been thrown into the encyclopaedia without verification and can be "reasonably expected" to contain errors? Thanks for correcting the article, although I feel I must say that "Legend has it" seems a fairly poor way to begin a sentence in what aspires to be a respectable encyclopaedia. Hmmmm, I still haven't made my mind up about Wikipedia. Perhaps if any of Wikipedia's key opinion-formers come across this discussion it will help them to see why some of us readers find it hard sometimes to trust what we see here, despite being extremely supportive of the principle that Wikipedia embodies. Anne 16:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, but one honest mistake on my part should not trigger the questioning of the worth of the entire Wikipedia project. Wikipedia articles should be written in prose, and I disagree that "Legend has it" is a poor way to present something, especially now that I have a reputable source (below). I am happy to admit I am fallible, yet by including this on DYK I have connected with someone who knows more about a factual aspect of the piece (which, lest we forget, is about North Berwick Harbour rather than Satanism / Paganism / Christianity etc.) and have thus corrected and found more sources for the section. I was indeed "reasonably sure" I was not introducing errors when I submitted the article, but once again would say that does not guarantee there are no errors. If you believe I deliberately pushed a false or biased point of view or opinion, that would be a very different matter. Furthermore, you have thus far only shown an interest in one aspect of one article, so to say that readers of DYK? are being "bombarded with statements of dubious validity" is presumably not aimed at me. I am proud of my contribution record to Wikipedia and stand by the neutrality and "good-faith" basis of my articles. Rest assured I have taken your point and will endeavour to ensure the accuracy of future articles, especially submissions to DYK?
I have found further sources, including a Scotsman article here: [1] and also this catalogue of old records: [2].
I do prefer to see the tilde-signature, in addition to a name if an unlogged user is making the post. I often welcome new users to WP, and that advice is part of the welcome message. Lots of the policies and guidelines in WP are no doubt seen as "Wikipedia dogma".
I would be happy to receive any further comments about this on my talk page. I hope you stick with Wikipedia, and once again encourage you to be bold when editing articles. You will certainly find many editors who do not care as much about the verifiability and accuracy of articles as I do. Deizio 16:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for your work in finding sources. The statement about DYK was indeed not aimed at you, but was a general comment about Wikipedia's standards. I don't question the worth of the entire project, but I do believe there are flaws that can and should be fixed if Wikipedia is to realise its full potential. This is perhaps a discussion for another time and place. I'm pleased to see the improvements to this article. 86.143.239.28 17:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Long quote[edit]

That's a long quote at the bottom, I know it's relevant but any chance it could be slimmed down? That's kinda why people are referred to links in the first place. Deizio 21:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I like it exactly as it is. But why don't you edit it? for example: "I said to him last tuesday the answer was no" can be edited to "I said [...] no." WAS 4.250 00:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh I will. And thanks for the English lesson, I'll pass that one on to my students in the morning ;) It's just I've been called on the stuff on this page once already so a) didn't want to precipitate another debate, b) I started the article but I'm not pretending I own the place. Nice one Deizio 01:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC
I've edited the quote, the thought occurs that the long version could be suited to the page about the Witch Trials? Deizio 01:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)