Talk:European witch-hunts/Archive1

Snigger
"...The Burning Times...", "...The Great Hunt..." Wow, reliable and scholarly sources then :D Welcome to RationalWiki Lulz 05:01, 7 June 2007 (CDT)


 * Maybe if we sourced from CreationWiki? --Kels 05:35, 7 June 2007 (CDT)


 * That response demonstrates your rudimentary ignorance of the subject. :D Lulz 05:41, 7 June 2007 (CDT)


 * Nah, your comment beat me to it. Or are you denying there was a documentary named The Burning Times, which is apparently only briefly referred to in the source? --Kels 06:50, 7 June 2007 (CDT)


 * Your argument is invalid - you seem to believe that there is no document called The Bible which CreationWiki relies upon. Arguing that the mere existence of a reference is itself validation of a reference is hardly "rational" thought. Hey - perhaps you could claim this as a historical reference source for the inquisitions of the middle ages too? :D לול 07:16, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

Oh, sorry. I didn't realize this was bad sock day. Carry on. --Kels 13:55, 7 June 2007 (CDT)


 * Ignorance. QED :D לול 14:14, 7 June 2007 (CDT)


 * Nothing so fancy --Kels 14:27, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

I do hope...
...that this article will be written with proper attention to actual history, rather than descending into an anachronistical festering mess of prejudices and finger-pointing, as is all too often the case with treatments of this subject. Otherwise, I might have to take action. *nods* --AKjeldsen 09:08, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

So...
...is anyone actually going to write anything about these "European Witch-Hunts", or...? -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 18:54, 29 August 2007 (CDT)
 * I was waiting for you to write it. Bohdan 18:55, 29 August 2007 (CDT)
 * I'd be happy to, but I doubt that it would remain within the original intended spirit, so to say. -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 19:00, 29 August 2007 (CDT)
 * If anyone ever does, they should at least make the use of the phrase in the article match the title. Or vice versa...  ħ uman  18:08, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Made an entry
I updated the stub into a "semistub" that at least gives some basic info. European history is not my field other than you have to know something about it to get a degree, I suppose. This summary is mostly culled from Gendercide http://www.gendercide.org/case_witchhunts.html, Wiki, and http://departments.kings.edu/womens_history/witch/. --WaitingforGodot 12:36, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

Issues
Can anyone figure out a way to rewrite the lead so it uses the title of the article? Also, "witch-hunts" shouldn't be capitalized (need to move page), and should it actually be hyphenated? Thanks...  ħ uman  15:06, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
 * First, I don't think it should be "European Witch Hunts". That is too specific and the data is far too detailed.  You need to describe Witch-Hunt the concept, not just the one in Europe, as they all share similar features. --WaitingforGodot 15:11, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I agree that we should further move this to "witch-hunt" and make the Euro part a subsection. And more detail on the "others" section...  ħ uman  16:41, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

60,00 v. 100,00
While it's not my field, I can see that a significant number of articles are listing far higher numbers than "60,000" for the number of victims. If you have a source for your 60,000 that superceeds the idea that there is a spread amongst academics, then that is fine. otherwise, I'd stick with Wiki since again, we are talking a range here. quote from wiki: ^ Brian Levack (The Witch Hunt in Early Modern Europe) multiplied the number of known European witch trials by the average rate of conviction and execution, to arrive at a figure of around 60,000 deaths. Anne Lewellyn Barstow (Witchcraze) adjusted Levack's estimate to account for lost records, estimating 100,000 deaths. Ronald Hutton (Triumph of the Moon) argues that Levack's estimate had already been adjusted for these, and revises the figure to approximately 40,000. --WaitingforGodot 15:26, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
 * One problem is that Barstow's "adjustment" is, as far as I remember, based on older secondary sources, which are not always themselves all that rigorous in the scholarship. Besides, her fairly obvious bias does not inspire much confidence. -- 16:02, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Fair enough. As I said, all I did was cull the internet, so I'm deferring to anyone who actually knows something.  --WaitingforGodot 16:06, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Did you check WP's sources? I try to go one level past them if I use them to find info for our articles, footnoting WP (especially without using difflinks) is sloppy.  Of course, when their source is a "book" it's harder to chase down...  ħ uman  16:37, 22 July 2008 (EDT)