Talk:Helen Duncan/Archive 1

Untitled
This has got to be one of the most POV articles i've ever read!

"Duncan's apologists have later claimed that the verdict was not "guilty" but the Scottish verdict of not proven. But if this were the case, she would not have been sentenced."

These weasel words need to be sorted out by someone who knows what they're talking about... Pennywisepeter (talk) 10:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * May not be WP:WEASEL: sources now added. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Making no claim to be "someone who knows what they're talking about", so waited before removing "Weasel" tag. Now deleting. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Documentary
Helen Duncan is the subject of a documentary on Channel 4 right now: Tony Robinson and…. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 21:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

D-Day????
This article states she was arrested in 1942 and that part of the reason for the trial/arrest was "The prosecution may be explained by the mood of near-paranoia surrounding the impending D-Day" D-Day did not happen until 6 June 1944 and wasn't even in the planning stages until 1943. I can see now way anyone in the military would be worried that she would have devulged secrets of a plan that hadn't even been formulated. --dashiellx (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's just the "D-Day" wording (which is also used in the cited source). The invasion was under active consideration at the time: see, for example, the abortive "trial run" that was the Dieppe Raid. Security was very much in the forefront of the public's mind—"Keep Mum"—but "near-paranoia" is probably going a bit far. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wording changed, tag removed.--Old Moonraker (talk) 09:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Good edit. Much better then what was there before.  Good job! --dashiellx (talk) 10:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spotting this in the first place! --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

it doesn't say she was arrested, it refers to the military becoming suspicious in 1941. suspicion is hugely different to being put on trial and this loose representation is very unhelpful. it then goes on to discuss causes for suspicion an evidence brought up in trial.

Confusion in first paragraph.
The first paragraph states that Jane Rebecca Yorke succeeded the subject as the last person imprisoned under the Witchcraft Act of 1735. Yet later it states that Yorke was bound over after conviction not imprisoned. I believe time spent on remand, in Yorke's case, would not have been under the auspices of this act.

This would seem to make Duncan, The last person imprisoned under the Witchcraft Act of 1735 or at least, the last person imprisoned after conviction under the act. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fourisplenty (talk • contribs) 16:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to add a ref for Yorke's conviction. Do you want to adjust the lede? --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm going to restore the wording of the first para to that prior to the edit by 118.210.66.242. This will remove the reference to Yorke which is not ideal because the erroneous edit by 118.210.66.242 seems to stem from confusion between conviction and sentencing, even though the wording would seem to be unambiguous. Fourisplenty (talk) 07:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Repeal of Witchcraft Act
'the Witchcraft Act 1735 under which she was convicted dealt not with witchcraft but with people who falsely claimed to be able to procure spirits.' What's the distinction? 'Procuring spirits' is surely one of the defining characteristics of a witch. This needs revising.Costesseyboy (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Falsely is the key difference between this Act and those that went before it; a 1604 Act defined the crime of practising witchcraft (including invoking spirits), whereas claiming to procure spirits is the offence in section 4 of the 1735 Act. The defining characteristic (at least, in the eyes of the law) of spiritualist mediums is the falsity. This is the offence in section 4 of the 1735 Act and of this she was convicted. Any help?--Old Moonraker (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've amended the text to eliminate the confusion. --  Zac   Δ talk! 17:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of the "pardon" campaign
This paragraph, soundly referenced, has just been deleted. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the issue (crude gloss: "deluded spiritualists, or campaigners for truth and justice") nowadays it's one of the defining issues surrounding Duncan and certainly not a "passing reference". It should be retained. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that the status of the original poster has been clarified (one-week block, see here) may we now concentrate on the article? I'm about to reinstate the deleted material, because the continuing effort to have Duncan's conviction overturned is one of the reasons for her notability. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Implemented, with some tweaks. Reference to Psychic World removed (the initial dispute included a suggestion that the organ was being promoted beyond its merits), references from The Scotsman strengthened. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Helen Duncan BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/scottishhistory/modern/oddities_modern.shtml Hope this helps Hitomi Kurihara (talk) 15:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The arrest of Helen Duncan was a bit of a paradox, as she was arrested for being a fraud following a séance in which she gave out information (potential state secrets) which she could have had no prior knowledge of. A BBC History programme (which I have attached a link to) states “Additionally, it has often been suggested that the reason for Duncan's imprisonment was the authorities' fear that details of the imminent D-Day landings might be revealed, and given the revelation about the Barham it is clear to see why the medium might be considered a potential risk. Nonetheless, then prime minister Winston Churchill wrote to the home secretary branding the charge 'obsolete tomfoolery'.”