Talk:List of people executed for witchcraft/Archive 1

Archive 1

Who to include?

Hi there Ishtar456, I noticed your additions to List of people executed for witchcraft, which look good. I like the images you added. For the redlinked people - are they likely to have articles written about them at some point? I don't mean by you necessarily, but would you say they meet WP:N guidelines? Also, for the redlinked ones, do you think you could add references? Eventually, all the entries should be referenced, but it's not as vital for the ones that have articles as they can be verified through the articles. Where there's no article though, it's best to have a reference. Anyway, good work! --BelovedFreak 07:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah there is a reference. Give me a little tome to get back there to add it. Some may have articles in the future, some maynot. The information available varies from person to person. I have not research all of them. But the list I got them from is reliable. Take care,--Ishtar456 (talk) 08:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem, take your time! In the long term, I would suggest removing non-notable entries, as there could literally be tens of thousands! It's not a problem for now though. Have fun!--BelovedFreak 08:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

How do you determine if they are "non-notable"? I figure getting executed for witchcraft makes one notable...or does one have to have a play written about one, or be of a high social class?

For the purpose of writing an article about them, it would be significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. To look at it another way, there needs to be enough to say about them to warrant an article. If these people are merely listed in your source as being part of a witch trial, then they probably wouldn't have an article about them and could just be mentioned in a relevant more general article (eg. Salem witch trials). "Person x (born 1678) was executed for witchcraft in Massachusetts in 1663" is likely to get sent to WP:AFD, and if no further info is available in reliable sources, is likely to be deleted.

For inclusion in a list, it's a bit different. Some lists only contain items notable enough for their own article. List of physicians or List of Scots, for example, should only contain people with Wikipedia articles. List of tablets on the Memorial to Heroic Self Sacrifice (which is like a list of people) contains many people who although interesting and possibly "notable" in our eyes, never generated enough interest in independent sources to be able to write a Wikipedia article about them.

What we need to decide is which kind of list this is, and what the inclusion criteria should be. When I started it, I intended it just to be for people who have (or are likely to have) a Wikipedia article about them. My feeling is that with tens of thousands of people executed for witchcraft, listing them all, or as many as we can find, would border on indiscriminate information. However, it's not my list :)... I'd be interested to know what you think. Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists is a good guideline to read, as well as the other links in {{List navbox}}. Sorry if this is long-winded, but it's a bit more complicated where lists are concerned.--BelovedFreak 09:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I am seriously considering writing an article that covers the New England witch-hunt period between 1647-1688 for the very reasons you mentioned above. There are many, many sources about the topic, but I have not yet scoured them all to discover for which individuals there is enough information for separate articles. By the articles I have written so far, I believe I have demonstrated the ability to know the difference between well sourced topics and those that aren't, but I would not use "notoriety" to describe them. I do not think that the amount of information in print about a person, especially in this type of context, makes them any more or less notable-it is just a matter of how well sourced they are. I understood the list to be of people executed for witchcraft. I did not realize that the list was only for those with wikipedia articles. Maybe there should be some indication in the article that that is the case. And if that is the case, then I would suggest deleting those without articles. However, if I write the collective article that I am thinking about writing, I do not see why the individuals would not be listed individually on the list. I did view the articles for each and everyone of those currently on the list just last night in search of images and I have to tell you that several are tagged as orphans-so many that are currently on the list would have to be removed in the future if that is the route you take. It makes no difference to me, except that I feel that if the criterion to be on the list is execution for witchcraft, than any individual who was executed for witchcraft is eligible to be on it and by including those without articles you could inspire the writing of more articles. --Ishtar456 (talk) 10:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I would definitely be interested to read such an article! If an article is well sourced, then chances are it will avoid deletion, but I hope you take my point that if an article consists of only a single sentence (and can only ever consist of that because there is nothing else written about the person in any source) then (I believe) that information would be better in a larger article or list. I didn't quite understand your comment about articles tagged as orphans, or that being a reason for removing them from the list. Not sure if I missed something there.

As far as this list goes, maybe we should wait and see for a bit. See if you manage to get enough to write articles on those ones redlinked at the moment. I certainly won't be rushing off to remove them. It might be worth opening this discussion up further at the article talkpage to see what other opinions are. At the risk of repeating myself, tens of thousands of people could conceivably be included here and although all those names won't be available, I bet we could find many names listed to add to the list, who wouldn't have articles. I think the question we need to ask is whether or not listing everyone we can find would have encyclopedic value. I'm just not sure. One idea I just thought of, is that this doesn't have to be the only list. For example, you write an article on the New England witch-hunt period between 1647-1688. You could then have (either embedded in the article, or as a stand-alone list) List of people executed in New England 1647-1688, or something similar. This could then list all the people you find mentioned. Then we could have List of people executed during the Fulda witch trials to go with Fulda witch trials, etc. Just a thought, I don't know, this might be a bad idea, but that seems to make more sense to me, from an encyclopedic point of view, keeping the main list limited to those deemed notable by out notability guidelines.

And yes, you're right that the scope of the article needs to be better defined in the lead. :) --BelovedFreak 11:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I would NEVER write and article that was one sentence long. However, take a look at Mary Johnson, currently on the list. An orphan is an article that has few or no links to it. They are tagged for deletion. I came across several last night, but am having difficulty locating one now to show you as an example, Mary Johnson should be one if it does not get improved soon and the people that do that tagging are pretty agressive about it and do not give much warning when they delete them. I was thinking that some of the Salem victims should just link to the Salem Witch Trials article, since even in that case several have tiny, unsourced articles. My stance is that if the list is of people executed for witchcraft, anyone that is "discovered" should be included. If that seems too daunting then the purpose of the list should be changed. I understand that there are ten of thousands of victims. And that is a problem, but maybe it makes as much sense to have a list with this title as is does to have Soldiers killed in WWII, People exterminated in the Holocaust, or People born in May, 2010. oops--Ishtar456 (talk) 11:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Certainly all things to think about. Don't worry about orphaned articles though, being orphaned is absolutely not a reason to delete in any of our policies or guidelines, and would not wash as an argument at WP:AFD. Of course, it's desirable for articles not to be orphaned, as incoming links help readers to find articles, but they won't be deleted for that. That Mary Johnson is a different person and shouldn't be linked to here (she's an English test cricketer!) --BelovedFreak 11:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the tag says that orphans can be deleted and I have seen cases where they were. --Ishtar456 (talk) 12:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Which tag? {{Orphan}} doesn't. If articles have been deleted purely for being orphans, that is not supported by any policy. Orphans sometimes have other problems that may lead to their deletion, related to notability, verifiability etc.--BelovedFreak 13:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Mary Parsons

Please remove entry for Mary Parsons, The entry's reference [8] is shown below:

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 twelve persons who were executed for witchcraft in New England before 1692, when twenty 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 Alse 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."

This reference is to a book over a hundred years old which has errors.

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. - Ken —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.238.116 (talk) 22:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable; in the absence of conflicting evidence I've removed the Mary Parsons entry. The information remains in the page history if anyone wants to re-add it.--BelovedFreak 22:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

British before Great Britain excisted?

In the article, the English colonies in present USA is referred to as the British colonies, and its inhabitants as British. But Great Britain was created in 1707, and prior to that, there were not British colonies, just English colonies. Am I right? And this article mentions people in America prior to 1707. Should not this be corrected? --Aciram (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Alice Lake

Please remove the Alice Lake link. The linked Wikipedia page is here. Clearly, the linked article does not relate to the Alice Lake accused of witchcraft in 1650. Here is an external link to a webpage with reputable resources. Alice Marie Beard should be added as a reference. Thank you! --Kepi3 (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Globalize

Africa is the source of many recent reports of lynchings and other types of executions for witchcraft, but the article only discusses Europe and Anglo-America. I'm not familiar with witchcraft jurisprudence in other parts of the Americas, but I'm sure there are plenty of interesting facts available, especially in the Caribbean region that was first populated by people coming from cultures that are known for witchcraft executions in Europe and Africa. I'm sure there are many others I haven't thought of to mention, but this should be a good enough description of why I added the Globalize template. Badon (talk) 06:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not only West-centric, but historical-centric and Christianity-centric. Witchcraft executions continue to happen on a regular basis in Saudi Arabia and parts of Africa. This is one of those lists that could never possibly be completed. If it's not globalized, then it should be retitled. Klopek007 (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Bridget Cleary

Why is Bridget Cleary on the list? She wasn't executed, she was murdered by her husband. Unless we're going to change the thread title I don't see why her death is included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shralk (talk • contribs) 20:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Hypatia

The below entry does not belong, she was not killed because of witchcraft and the source used is not a historian but an occult book publisher.

Hypatia 370–415 Alexandrian Stripped and torn to pieces by a Christian mob. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.92.91.74 (talk) 08:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not familiar with this topic, so let's see if there are any objections to her removal first, and if not, go ahead then. Another alternative is to perhaps consider changing the wording, to something like "she was believed to have been the first..." Bennv3771 (talk) 08:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Witch killings have occurred for thousands of years ( so in no way could she be the first), she was a political killing that had nothing to do with witchcraft. The source used is not a legit one for historical information.

Nyzette Cheveron

The page has been deleted. Either we keep the name and add a reference or we remove it.Xx236 (talk) 08:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Did they all die?

"List of witches" redirects here... were there no notable alleged witches who didn't get murdered? That's sad. EatenRiper (talk) 09:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)