Talk:Burning Times

factual accuracy dispute, copy from featured article candidature

 * (...)Worst however, is the question of accuracy. I suggest reviewers start by reading "Recent Developments in the Study of The Great European Witch Hunt", a review article by a Wiccan who also has an M.A. in medieval history. One sentence summary: much of what was traditionally believed about witches and witch-hunting is now proven to be mythical. Much of the original part of the Burning Times article is based on this myth. A featureable article on this topic would include origins and early form of the myth, recent historical research which debunks it, what really happened, and attitudes and beliefs today (Wiccan and otherwise). Securiger 03:20, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Article offered by securiger is devastating. Author appears to be offering the foundation mythology of one of the religions invented in the 20th century as history; since it primarily libels another religion, needs strong evidence and balanced input to even belong in this encyclopedia. Alteripse 04:31, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Links that may help to rewrite the article

 * http://www.randi.org/jr/052804reggie.html
 * http://www.cog.org/witch_hunt.html (also mentioned above)

Merge with Witch Hunt article?
May be this article has to be merged with witch hunt? I put this article on the clean up page? Andries 09:46, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

New version
Created new accurate article some of the following may be worth merging with witchunt. --Machenphile 14:39, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Burning Times, also known as the Women's Holocaust, began on 5 December, 1484 with a Papal Bull written by Pope Innocent VIII called Summis desiderantes which instigated very severe measures against witches in Germany. The principles enunciated by him were afterwards embodied in the Malleus Maleficarum in 1487. Summis desiderantes outsold every book in many following years except the Bible. It became a handbook for witch-hunters everywhere.

Witch Hunters
Witch hunters were average men who were paid a fee for each "Witch" they caught. In preparation for a trial, following the papal bull, they would torture the accused in hopes of finding a confession, and if none, the accused would face trial.

Witch hunters' common methods of "testing" to see if someone was a witch included stripping them naked and stabbing them with hot pokers, reading that the devil had given them a mark that was completely immune to pain. The people who would look for these marks would nearly always be men and there would always have to be at least one to three other men in the room recording thier findings.

Mock-Trials
When a "Witch" was put on trial, the whitness's testimony often involved phrases such as, "I saw her dancing with the devil" or "I saw her flying through the air on her broomstick" and that was considered "hard evidence". Andyone who spoke for the "Witch" was tried as a "Witch" soon after, and those who they had spoken against were happy to testify against them with thier "evidences".

Punishment for being a Witch
For being a Witch, most were either burned alive at the stake, hanged, or stoned. These were some of the more common ways, but some areas got more "creative" than that.

Witches Today
Witches today, many in the religion of Wicca or more generally Neo-Paganism, are much safer than they were before the Anti-Witch law in england was repealed in 1951, yet still face much persecution from the stereotypes that have surfaced thanks to the media and such.

"My POV good, your POV bad"
So we've gone from an inaccurate and POV article taking one side of a dispute to a possibly accurate but very POV article taking the other side. In order to make this an appropriate article, I believe the following would need to be addressed:


 * 1) Actual citation on Gerald Gardner, and preferably either his own acknoledgement or some other authority's statement that he invented the term.
 * 2) Phrases like "something which has no proved basis in fact", "the inaccurate views of Margaret Murray", etc. are nothing more than POV assertions on controversial matters. Cite specific authorities to this effect, don't just assert. In fact, the article does not cite a single authority in stating that the named writers are wrong, nor does it name even one of the "various American feminist historians" it says took up the idea. Certainly Mary Daly would be a good example. I suspect there are several others who should be cited as holding this view. I also think their sources should be alluded to and (if indeed their scholarship was poor) refuted rather than dismissed out of hand.
 * 3) Again, "Modern historians have shown" is hopelessly vague.

Jmabel 06:04, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * well, yes, I agree with Jmabel that the articles doesn't deal yet with the different view points in an accurate way, NPOV way. But I believe it has already improved greatly and I want to thank Machenphile for this. Andries 17:49, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Criticism noted and fair. Have added some references and reworded it. Still hunting out improved refs for feminist section. Daly is mentioned by Hutton amongst others. He also does not cite an exact ref for Gardner originating the term... but as he is the recognised authority and thats the earliest ref he has for it was probabally came from Gardner. It could be term he got from the "mysterious new forest coven" though I suppose.

Really what we need is a better witchhunt article. Then this could refer there.

--Machenphile 15:32, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)