Talk:Malkin Tower

Question about accuracy
I saw this article when it was the featured article on October 31, 2013. I raise an issue about the accuracy of article, because it contains a patent error. This is probably a problem with the underlying source material rather than the article itself, but it is nonetheless a patent error.

The article states that the coven of the Pendle witches met on April 6, 1612, and that the date was Good Friday. Although it is true that April 6, 1612 was a Friday on the Gregorian calendar, it was not Good Friday but two weeks before Good Friday. In addition, Great Britain was using the Julian calendar in 1612, not the Gregorian calendar. April 6, 1612 was not Good Friday on the Julian calendar, either; it was not even a Friday. Good Friday of 1612 was April 20 on the Gregorian calendar and April 10 on the Julian calendar. That can be verified by entering the Gregorian dates into the Wolfram Alpha math engine and examining the Julian calendar and Hebrew calendar dates that coincide. In addition, I checked a 1611 prayer book which has an Easter table that verifies the Julian calendar date for Good Friday as given above. (A Google search for prayer books and missals from that period should links to PDFs of source materials that can verify this fact.)

The error in the date of the convening of the supposed Pendle witch coven may call other details of the story into question. -- Bob (Bob99 (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC))


 * Interesting, but it's commonplace for modern historians to convert from old style to new style dates. Just looking at the sources I have immediately to hand both Bennett (1993) and Hasted (1993) are quite explicit that the meeting took place on Good Friday, 6 April 1612. Do you have any sources to contradict that? Eric   Corbett  14:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The point is that the date is impossible, both in terms of Old Style (Julian) dating and in terms of New Style (Gregorian) dating. The point is that April 6 of 1612 was not Good Friday. Only one day of that year was Good Friday, and it may be cited as Friday October 10 (Old Style/Julian) or as Friday October 20 (New Style/Gregorian). The Julian calendar puts April 6 of that year on a Monday, while the Gregorian calendar puts April 6 of that year on a Friday, but two weeks before Good Friday. Julian-Gregorian correspondences and days of the week for historical dates can be verified, for example, by the Wolfram Alpha math engine (www.wolframalpha.com), and the date of Good Friday can be verified by the Moveable Feast tables of various 17th prayer books, such as (for example) the 1611 Book of Common Order of the Church of Scotland (see, e.g., 1868 reprint by William Blackwood and Sons, Edinburgh and London). (Catholic and Protestant prayer books of this type typically contain tables showing when Easter occurs over a period of time when the book is expected to be in use.) You could also use one of the algorithms in the Wikipedia article on the Easter Computus to calculate it yourself. -- Bob (Bob99 (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC))


 * Does the original trial transcript say what the alleged day was? Parrot of Doom 14:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Answered it myself (was being lazy), according to this file they met "Good Friday last". Parrot of Doom 14:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Years ago there was severe edit warring at various Ernest Shackleton-related articles about how close he got to the South Pole. Most reliable sources say less than 100 miles, the context being statute miles. However, it is easily calculable from his latitude that he got to 112 statute miles (within 100 nautical miles) and a few sources give the right distance. These articles, which have all become featured, now either silently correct the distance or record the discrepancy in a footnote. Thincat (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've yet to be convinced that there's a discrepancy to be explained. Eric   Corbett  16:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, if the discovery document is the main source for most of what's written about the Pendle Witches, and the source of the "Good Friday", then all that remains is for someone knowledgeable to check what date that Friday would have fallen on in either calendar. Unfortunately that requires detailed knowledge of moon phases and tradition, well beyond my skills. Parrot of Doom 17:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Personally I don't think this matters too much from the point of view of the article, but I agree with what says above. In 1612, Good Friday wasn't on 6th April in either calendar. Here is a website that calculates the date of Easter Day for any year in either Julian or Gregorian calendars. http://www.koshko.com/calendar/easter-js.shtml Thincat (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I've looked deeper into this and found a number of sources saying that the meeting at Malkin Tower took place on 10 April rather than 6 April. On the Julian calendar then in use that was indeed a Friday, and given that by the Gregorian calendar Easter Sunday was on 22 April in 1612 (12 April by the Julian calendar) that seems to fit. So I'll change the date now and add an explanatory note later. Eric   Corbett  17:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, how interesting. Well, in the Julian calendar for 1612, 10 April was Good Friday, not merely a Friday. Thincat (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, that's what I meant to say. Eric   Corbett  18:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So perhaps this article and the linked article on the Pendle witches should be changed. But the original point remains. The April 6 sources, which appear to have been relied on significantly, appear to be less than completely reliable. It is possible that the correct date was Monday April 6 but that it was sensationalized at some point to Good Friday, because associating a gathering of witches with Good Friday is just so very interesting. At the very least, the sources should be looked at critically. -- Bob (Bob99 (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC))
 * Both articles have been changed, and the sources have been looked at critically. The only contemporary source for this event is Potts' Discoverie of Witches, and he quite explicitly states that the meeting took place on Good Friday, so there can be no real doubt, and no later addition to sensationalise the event.  Eric   Corbett  20:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And I've just realised I haven't thanked you for spotting this date discrepancy, so thanks. Eric   Corbett  21:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. One last thought is whether it would be better to have the article say Good Friday without a date. If the reliable sources say Good Friday, then one could argue that all of the foregoing back-and-forth about the date is really an exercise in original research. (Also, I note that the Wolfram Alpha information indicates, by the Hebrew and Islamic calendar dates, that this particular Good Friday would have coincided with a full moon, so that would fit the accusation of a stereotypical witches' sabbath.) -- Bob (Bob99 (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC))
 * The court records give the date as Good Friday, and there can be no possible doubt about when Good Friday was in 1612. Eric   Corbett  21:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

"coven gathering" not "trial"
The opening states that the tower was the site of the most famous witch trial. However, a similar sentence lower down states that the tower was where the coven met, which makes much more sense, especially if the Malkin Tower was pulled down by locals after the trial. It's unlikely that the courthouse would have been destroyed.Mahuna2 (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Changed earlier today by one or more anonymous editors, and now fixed - thanks. BencherliteTalk 16:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Glitch?
Right now, on my screen, the article says (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's fine here (win 8.1 + chrome) Parrot of Doom 20:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It went away after these edits though, interestingly, that editor's user page has nine of those Category things on top. Drmies (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I noticed it too. But seems to have been rectified now? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

TOC
Why in the world would you need a TOC for an article that is only four sections long? Is it really necessary in this case? The reader can scroll down, can't they? Epicgenius (give him tirade • check out damage) 14:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Haven't you got anything better to do? Eric   Corbett  14:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I could watch Family Guy (in fact, I could do a lot of things), but that's beside the point. The point is to not add a TOC to articles that don't need it. Epicgenius (give him tirade • check out damage)  14:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It wasn't added, it's the default. Eric   Corbett  15:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Epicgenius is right to raise this question. Corbett, show some civility (WP:CIVIL): Responses like "haven't you got anything better to do?" are completely inappropriate. This is a wiki, where users work together. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 15:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * And that's enough of the comments directed at contributors. Discuss the merits of the TOC and whether its automatic generation should be overridden here with  . BencherliteTalk 15:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

After a closer look, I've concluded that the article is only 10–12 paragraphs long. This is a relatively short article compared to other articles (like Pi, Gangnam Style, or Futurama). In such articles (with over 20 paragraphs) it might be appropriate to add a TOC. However, when the article is, on the most part, short (like this one), it's easier to add. Epicgenius (give him tirade • check out damage) 19:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * How can it be easier to add than to do nothing at all and leave it to the default?  Eric   Corbett  19:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Isn't iteasier to add than to have that useless TOC wasting space?  Epicgenius (give him tirade • check out damage)  23:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Having the TOC included is the default; it is easier to leave the default than it is to modify the article. You seem to be confusing "easier" with some other term. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Unqualified Usage of "Slut" in Article Prose
Currently the article reads: "The name Malkin has several possible derivations: it was a familiar form of the female names Mary or Maud, and a term for a poor or shabby woman;[2] the similar mawkin was a word used to describe a lower-class woman or slut.[3]" Putting aside that the toponymy section was clearly written by someone without a background in historical linguistics background (the writing style and wording give this away), here the non-neutral term "slut" is used without qualification. This is a major problem. By not providing qualification or appropriate mark up (either quotation marks derived directly form the author or apostrophes to signify 'semantic value'), the term here is used as if it is simply a fact of life, and not the moral judgment that it was. This is not neutral.

Attempts to fix this have been aggressively reverted by, who went as far as reverting—at times without edit summary—four times in a 24 hour window (1, 2, 3, 4). His other edit summaries in the history section of this talk page reveal a similar aggressive stance to other changes to the article.

This article is currently locked down to Corbett's preferred version and non-administrators cannot edit it. Very convenient for Corbett, but unfortunate for the reader. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that your writing style "Putting aside that the toponymy section was clearly written by someone without a background in historical linguistics background (the writing style and wording give this away) ... clearly gives you away as a pompous you-know-what. A background in a background? What's that supposed to mean? Look up the word mawkin in a decent dictionary and let us know if the word slut is in quotes. Eric   Corbett  15:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It's simple etymology, my good man. Those mark ups are employed for a reason. If the extent of your linguistics background is a dictionary, it's time to dig a little further. There's a big difference between the synchronic and the diachronic, and the toponymy section is currently a jumble. Dismissing this complaint as "pompous" gets this article nowhere. Grab an etymological dictionary, see how semantic values are marked up. Dictionaries are just the surface, but a good one will come with a basically accepted etymology. If someone lifts the current "protect Eric Corbett's preferred status" version, I'll see what I can do about rewriting the section for you. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It obviously isn't so simple, as you clearly have no idea or understanding of what you're talking about. Eric   Corbett  15:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Really? Set me straight, Eric, because from where I'm sitting it basically looks to me like you've wandered in over your head and have to simply resort to "you have no idea or understanding of what you're talking about". &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Bloodofox, stop it. Eric, ignore that provocative remark. Please, both of you, read what I put below. BencherliteTalk 15:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * (after multiple edit conflicts) Bloodofox, please depersonalise this discussion and focus on the content, not the contributors or their background (whether in historical linguistics or otherwise). After all, you took to "discussing" things through edit summaries as you repeated your disputed edit rather than taking matters to the talk page, which is why your AN3 report was declined. Don't carry that grudge into this discussion.  Incidentally, articles are always protected at "The wrong version" and it's only temporary anyway.  I doubt any readers will be seriously harmed by the article as it stands while discussion takes place. Now, I would like all future contributions to this thread to be about whether slut should be in quotation marks or not, rather than who did what and why yesterday/today etc. BencherliteTalk 15:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Bencher, are you going to warn Eric about civility? Or is the issue here that someone questioned Eric? Because it's quite convenient that you're only coming around now and have had nothing to say about Eric's various personal attacks above and in the history section here. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I wrote that before Eric's reply, but got multiple edit conflicts trying to get it in at all, so I didn't expand it to refer specifically to his reply to your initial provocation. I hope by now both of you are getting the message that diverting from the direct subject is not helpful.  And I don't know what you're insinuating about me "only coming around now", but I don't appreciate it.  Check the edit history for why I'm here and what I've done.  (Hint: I schedule every TFA, so they are on my watchlist before, during and after TFA day, and I step in when I have to). BencherliteTalk 15:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Restart
So, the question is - should slut appear as "slut" or slut? Discuss this, not contributors or their abilities/background/histories etc. BencherliteTalk 15:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * As this is referring to a morality judgment and not a simple fact and we're talking about a semantic value, this either needs quotation marks or apostrophes around it. Apostrophes are standard mark up for semantic values in linguistics. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The word slut is colloquial, perjorative and carries with it moralistic judgment, hence it is not especially encyclopedic. Would it be better to use promiscuous? Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the discussion is not whether to use the term or not. It's putting it under a qualifier; i.e., quotation marks or apostrophes, to avoid using the word as if it were some sort of moralistic judgment by the narrator rather than a relayed semantic value. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Alternatively it could be phrased "someone considered slutty". The problem with using quotation marks or "scare quotes" is that it wouldn't be clear why they are being used or who is being quoted. If they are needed it is better to include some form of attribution or better explanation. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's standard for semantic values, but I would still take "one considered a promiscuous woman" rather than the unqualified "slut" in the prose. One of the issues is how badly the section is currently put together. It should definitely be more clear and use standard notation. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I mentioned on Bloodofox's talk page that what matters is what the source says. That source is not available online; I don't know who brought the word into the article but I have to assume good faith in that they properly represented what the book says. I pointed out also that the word may well be deemed problematic (but this is no reason to go on a witch hunt, of course); any rephrasing of it, however, will have to be done with the book in hand because context is everything here. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We also present information in a neutral manner, no matter what a source says. "Slut" is by no means neutral and requires special handling. Under no circumstance may it be employed without qualification on these articles. The same goes for racial slurs and words such as "sin". It's rather surprising that we're debating this, but note that Drmies is a good friend of Corbett. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure I am. So I must be wrong. Drmies (talk) 16:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record, your edit summary, which read "The name Malkin is not real has several possible derivations" contains the phrase "not real", which is the result of vandalism and obviously not my intended addition. Please refrain from attempted taunts.&#58;bloodofox: (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "Good friend" is a taunt too: you're suggesting that I can't see right from wrong because I'm a friend. (I'm also a linguist with a Ph.D., but whatever.) And I see now how you reinserted that stuff--that's what happens when one gets caught up in an edit war, I suppose. Can I repeat that the source needs to be discussed here? Drmies (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You can repeat it all you want, and I will agree, but I'm not here to be taunted. Your relation to the user in question is relevant to this discussion. Your supposed PhD, unconfirmable as it is, is irrelevant. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 17:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Come on. This is the antithesis of "comment on content, not on editors", the opposite of what Bencherlite called for. As it happens, I agree with a rephrasing, but you have given me no reason whatsoever to agree with you on a content issue, since you question my judgment in almost every remark you make. Sorry Bencherlite: I'm going to drop this stick now and throw it in the yard, far from the house. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll ask you next time to avoid the misguided edit summary taunting, thanks. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The OED has a good entry on malkin, one definition of which is "sluttish woman" (without the quotes). I wonder, who exactly is offended here?  It's just a word and it hasn't been used pejoratively. Parrot of Doom 16:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Dictionaries produce lists of semantic values. They do not spit out narratives. Also, as a Wikipedia editor, I am sure you realize that words have constellations of semantic values, and these values can be offensive or ideological. A core principle of Wikipedia is neutrality WP:NPOV, and therefore we don't make moral judgments. As a result, non-neutral language needs to be couched in quotation marks or attributed directly, in prose, to their source. In this case, we're talking about the semantic value. OED usually contains a etymologies with entries; see those apostrophes? &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Aren't you making a moral judgement by proclaiming the word slut is offensive? That's hardly neutral.  It doesn't offend me.  Have you read Gropecunt Lane? Parrot of Doom 16:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There term is generally considered pejorative, although there have been attempts at "reclaiming" it. Given the data we have on the lexeme, this wasn't always the case. However, that's beside the point. The same goes for "cunt", our native term replaced with a Latinate. Again, beside the point. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The suggestion that we use the descriptor slut because that's the word used in a book from 1989 seems misguided. As an unattributed designation it is colloquial and perjorative, hence unencyclopedic. It at least needs qualifications or explanation. Even Wikipedia's entry on slut notes that the term is perjorative. The comparison to other impartial language is apt here. We avoid the terms negro, kink, kiki, fag etc. for similar reasons. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nobody in the UK avoids the word fag. Or faggot. Parrot of Doom 16:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe, but this is for a broader audience. The OED has, " A typical name (usu. derogatory) for: a lower-class, untidy, or sluttish woman, esp. a servant or country girl. In Scotland: an awkward or ungainly young girl." No italics, no quotation marks. (Typical--it's a dictionary.) I would support a rephrase, considering the "derogatory" part, to something like "'sluttish woman', according to the OED." Drmies (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Drmies here. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yet you're well aware that the term is highly pejorative elsewhere in the anglosphere. Wikipedia is not written specifically for the UK. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm finding the fact that Bloodofox is being allowed to make these repeated personal attacks to be rather interesting. For the record, I don't recall ever having read the Catlow book being used a source, I didn't write that section of the article anyway, and I did in fact study linguistics as part of my psychology degree. Eric  Corbett  17:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks such as? If you've got the background, and it's in question, say otherwise. Meanwhile, your willingness to revert, without edit summary, attempts to apply quotation marks or apostrophes to the word "slut" has given users every reason to question said background. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So you're calling me a liar now. Interesting. Eric   Corbett  19:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I said no such thing. However, you're certainly saying quite a lot elsewhere that would get other users blocked. But this isn't really the place for you and I to go round and round. If you want to chat, I invite you to my talk page. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Moving on
Alright, for the sake of this article and as suggested above, let's try to keep this discussion entirely on article content and not inter-Wikipedia politics. So far we've had two users voicing support in changing the wording and two users making an unclear stance. Can we get some reasons for or against applying quotation marks or apostrophes to the usage of the word slut here? &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If a person was commonly described as a fanatic, a pejorative word, would you think that should be in quotes? Parrot of Doom 19:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. If it isn't an objective description, then it needs to be quoted. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * But I find that bizarre, because if used in the same context as slut, I can see no offence whatsoever. "the similar mawkin was a word used to describe a radical preacher or fanatic".  Who on earth would be offended by that? Parrot of Doom 19:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This isn't an issue of offending anyone, this is an issue of neutrality. Consider "freedom fighter" versus "terrorist" (Terrorist). Degrees of religious zealotry fall into the area of subjectivity. We're supposed to be objective here. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think what we have here is another one of those silly feminism/gender issues. Remember how it's OK on here to call someone a dick but not a cunt? Eric   Corbett  19:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Gender studies is certainly not a "silly" topic, but that's not what we're talking about here. And it's not OK to call someone either of those things on Wikipedia, so I don't know what that has to do with anything. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you might like to explain the existence of WP:DICK then, and why there's no corresponding WP:CUNT. No? I didn't think so. Eric   Corbett  19:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's an essay, not a policy. Wikipedia has plenty of nonsensical or poorly-considered essays out there. None of that has anything to do with what we're talking about. Please stay on topic. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So you choose to avoid the issue, no surprise there. Eric   Corbett  19:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * But the article is describing a word, not a person. How can any true description of a word ever be subjective?  I'd understand if it was used to describe some historical figure or other and I'd immediately be on your side, but a word? Parrot of Doom 19:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Words can be subjective or objective. "The ball is yellow." "The sky is blue." These are objective descriptions. "The movie is awesome." "He is a terrorist." "She is a slut." These are subjective statements. Objective words are freely employed, subjective terms require caveats making it clear who said exactly what and under what circumstances; this is often done with quotation marks to make it evident that the narration is not making this subjective claim. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It's becoming clearer and clearer that you have no idea what you're talking about. The "sky is blue" is not objective it's subjective, as colours don't really exist. And nobody has called anyone a slut. Eric   Corbett  19:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * But you've completely ignored what I've said about the article describing a word, not a person. The article is patently true.  Your argument makes no sense to me. Parrot of Doom 19:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, we don't know how true the article is because no one bothered to put quotation marks around the word, so we don't know exactly what the source says. However, what we do have is a line of prose and at least one user who is vehemently against using standard mark up for reasons unknown, while at least three so far who want it changed. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I note you still have not responded to my point that the article describes a word and not a person. Parrot of Doom 20:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Please rephrase that so that I can understand what you're saying with that. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You're avoiding the question now, which makes me suspect you have no intention of answering it. I shall waste no more time on this - I support the article as it stands, end of. Parrot of Doom 20:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Or you could rephrase your question so that I can understand what you're asking, as I requested. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the pejorative nature of the term is irrelevant. The problem is that the word is unclear. Slut means whore. That is not the meaning intended. DrKiernan (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This statement gets my support. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Slut doesn't mean whore at all, and even if it did so what? Eric   Corbett  19:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Please read synonym. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Nowhere in the OED's entry for slut is the word "whore" to be found. Parrot of Doom 20:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Slut does mean whore. That is a fact. It also means slattern or slovenly woman. We're not all Godfrey Bloom. Readers who are not 70-year-old Yorkshiremen will read the word slut as whore. The question is does mawkin mean whore? I see from the OED that it does mean cunt so perhaps it does mean whore too? DrKiernan (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So we're guessing now? Eric   Corbett  20:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No. DrKiernan (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Words and their meanings evolve over time and their use differs depending on the location - take the word faggot - for a fair proportion of the English speaking world outside the weird world of double-ls, it's a derogatory term meaning a homosexual person, but back in Wales, it's a meatball comprising offal and offcuts of meat. Nick (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So, Parrot, next step, reach for a book with a section on synonyms. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You really are an insufferable little prick. Eric   Corbett  20:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's probably the least civil thing anyone has ever said to me on Wikipedia. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Meh, can't say it was undeserved. Drop the stick, back away from the horse, or your block log gets a new entry. You've crossed the line into trolling and general baiting and it stops right now. Nick (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have not done anything deserving a block. I have not called anyone any names. I'm here discussing the article content and dealing with a couple of friends. Meanwhile, I'm getting called all sorts of things. I don't think the threat of the block is appropriate; nobody deserves to be called an "insufferable little prick" or "an idiot" on here. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 20:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Stop behaving like one, and nobody will call you one. It's THAT simple. Nick (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What's the deal with these comments? They're out of nowhere and you've essentially just told me that I'm 'acting like an insufferable little prick'. That's not appropriate. I would much rather discuss what we're going to do about this section than get entangled with talk page Wikipedia politics over and over. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The discussion drifted off topic badly with So, Parrot, next step, reach for a book with a section on synonyms., so I'd suggest drifting it back on topic. Nick (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This reminds me of a previous case. As I said there, per WP:EUPHEMISM, "do not assume that plain language is inappropriate."  It is our policy that Wikipedia is not censored so the word slut seems fine without scare quotes or other bowdlerisms. Warden (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say the problem is that it just sort of drops the word in there and its usage is likely going to confuse someone who is not familiar with the term's original meaning. How it is presently phrased an uninitiated reader might get the impression that Wikipedia just said lower-class woman are all excessively promiscuous. Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored, but it also is meant to be accessible to a global audience and that means we have to be careful about how we use certain words. Is the word so essential that it needs to be kept? If so is there a simple and concise way to indicate this is an archaic use of the term?-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 03:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I hate to be defending the other user's points, but I have. However, there's yet more to report. Interestingly, the OED does not attach any caveat ("derogatory" or "pejorative") to "slut". The other user is probably right that in much modern parlance the word is derogatory and suggests loose sexual morals--that looseness, then, should be seen in the light of misogyny. Eric, I know you don't like that, but I disagree with you here on the "silly" feminism stuff: I don't think feminism is silly, for starters. If "slut" carries a long, historically verifiable load of sexual double standards, then using the world "slut" to mean "woman of loose sexual morals" is pejorative; it's not a gender-neutral term since it's hardly applied to men with the same frequency or intent, and it suggests a background of gender inequality in how sexual behavior is judged. At the same time, though (and this is where we need to get back to the source, and possibly the source of the source), the article says (and again, I take that to come from the source) "a lower-class woman or slut". Now, the OED's first/oldest definition for "slut" is "A woman of dirty, slovenly, or untidy habits or appearance; a foul slattern." There's nothing sexist about that, though one could charge classism of course, in that any bourgeois person typically thinks of the lower class as dirty (at least that's what my mother taught me). That particular meaning, attested from 1402 on, jives perfectly with "lower-class woman". But the question for our readership is how many people are aware of that meaning for the word--I simply don't believe that it's the modern standard meaning, or what most people understand when they hear "slut". In other words, it is easily misunderstood, as this entire discussion proves (attributing good faith to the person who first objected). As such, one might consider removing it altogether, if the source, the source's source, and the context suggest that "lower-class woman" covers the meaning sufficiently. Or, again, one might add a modifier ("scare quotes" is pejorative, dear Colonel), if one thinks that the context is that of sexual impropriety--certainly in the case of witches that's a possibility, since sexual looseness was often ascribed to them. That's a lot of words for one word, I realize that. Probably too many. But I wanted to be thorough enough, especially since I find myself siding with an editor who I believe has not brought forth very good arguments or acted in a very collaborative manner as befits this project and particularly this very-well written and well-scrutinized article. Forgive me for bolding the one sentence that might otherwise get lost in these paragraphs of mine (and I note that--edit conflict--another editor might well agree with me). Believe me, I'm not going to (edit) war over its inclusion or exclusion. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I do indeed mean to say that scare quotes would be a bad thing here. As our article says, "Style guides generally recommend the avoidance of scare quotes in impartial works, such as in encyclopedia articles..."  It also seems relevant to note that the usage "dear Colonel" might be considered patronising.  Such language can result in disciplinary action in other places - see Patronising elderly 'like racist abuse'.  Of course, this shows the alarming extent to which busybodies are trying to force prissy language upon us.  Me, I take my guidance from Churchill who advocated plain English as in his memo on brevity, "Let us not shrink from using the short expressive phrase..." Warden (talk) 09:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha, I think a few people here are masters of the short expressive phrase, as their block log plainly shows. It's entirely possible that the short expressive phrase is no longer acceptable; tweets are hardly substitutes given the detachment of that particular medium. BTW, you know very well where my "dear Colonel" comes from: many years of bickering with you in, I hope, some mutual respect. I will never forget that you (and Malleus!) supported my RfA. You know I couldn't imagine the place without you. Well, I can, but it'd be a lesser place. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Where are all these offended and confused readers? 35,000 people viewed this article yesterday, the only people to complain are regular editors here. Parrot of Doom 11:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't put that much stock in our feedback system and I don't think you do either. Besides, how many of them are razor-sharp like me? huh? That's a very impressive number, by the way. You all should be on payroll: imagine if you got a dime for every reader. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If only. Parrot of Doom 00:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a good time for you all to learn Dutch and read de Volkskrant's weekly magazine: "The Slutspecial". One essay, and the cover photograph, here. Very timely. Drmies (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Drmies's comments. The real problem here is that the word is unclear. Is it intended in the slovenly etc sense here? That seems to make sense given the context, but I doubt many people today are aware of that archaic meaning. Neljack (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Where have you got the idea from that slut as used in the slovenly sense is archaic? In fact the very first definition of the word in my dictionary is "a dirty slatternly woman", the common meaning of the word Eric   Corbett  15:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Demdike family

 * "Friends of the Demdike family met at Malkin Tower on 10 April 1612,...."

Surely they were the "Southerns" family? If Demdike was the name used by the family, then the indication that this was applied to Elizabeth because she was mistrusted or feared is inaccurate. Or were they known collectively as the Demdikes? Was do the court records indicate?

Amandajm (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * They're commonly referred to as the Demdikes in the literature, as in "On 10 April there allegedly occurred a meeting of witches at the Demdikes' home, Malkin Tower", Sharpe (2002). Eric   Corbett  17:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Another source? "The Famous History of the Lancashire Witches"
I'd been working on another part of a book on Wikisource called Lancashire Legends, Traditions, Pageants, Sports, &c. with an Appendix Containing a Rare Tract on the Lancashire Witches, when I read this article by chance from the main page. The "Rare Tract" mentioned (thought by the editors to have been written before the Pendle Witches were executed in 1612) is primarily about these witches, and at the start mentions "Some time since, lived one Mother Cuthbert, in a little hovel at the bottom of a hill, called Wood and Mountain Hill [Pendle], in Lancashire."

I see this isn't mentioned in the article, nor at Pendle witches, but if anyone considers it worth adding I wouldn't mind helping to proofread it. ‑‑ xensyria T 16:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * What does it tell us about Malkin Tower that isn't already in this article? Eric   Corbett  17:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Good point. In fact another user has questioned whether it's actually about these "Pendle witches" at all. Had it been legitimate though, I would have thought another primary source (especially one that is claimed to be the oldest) would be worth a mention at least, but that's just academic now. &#8209;&#8209; xensyria T 00:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Archaeology v media
We currently have a link to a BBC news story reporting "'Witch's cottage' unearthed near Pendle Hill, Lancashire" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-16066680 though that report does not make the claim that the site excavated in 2011 is a possible candidate for Malkin Tower as the WP article claims. The news report does make a link to witches and mentions remains of a cat being found in the excavation. The report of that excavation, available here http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/greylit/details.cfm?id=17362 make no mention either of witches or of the discovery of remains of a cat. In the interest of balance that should be included here but a user has removed it, first on the ground that it "doesn't look like the same site", secondly with the comment "so", and now with a personal attack ("try not to be such an idiot in the future"). Perhaps USER:Eric Corbett Could explain his reasoning? And maybe have a look at WP:CIVIL too Ghughesarch (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm more interested in WP:COMMONSENSE than I am in WP:CIVIL. Eric   Corbett  16:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * How is it not commonsense to link to the archaeological report on the site mentioned in the article? Ghughesarch (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think that you and I have anything more to say to each other do we? Eric   Corbett  16:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

As the old saying goes, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Just because an archaeology report doesn't list something, I don't think that can be considered proof that something does not exist. Certainly, BBC News is generally considered a reliable enough source to show that there is at least speculation, and the article makes it clear that is a potential candidate, not definitive proof. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * While I tend to agree on the "absence of evidence" adage, since the excavation is the one mentioned in the BBC report, there seems to be no good reason why the professional report of the excavation should not be referenced in the article, and its lack of sensationalist elements noted. Ghughesarch (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As a compromise, I would suggest putting it in a footnote, that explains that the official archaeology report does not correlate with what the BBC reported. That should iron out most of the concerns, I'd have thought. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Since the concerns raised are 1. "doesn't look like the same site", 2. "so", 3. ""try not to be such an idiot in the future", 4. "I'm more interested in WP:COMMONSENSE than I am in WP:CIVIL", 5. "I don't think that you and I have anything more to say to each other do we?" I see no reason in encyclopaedic terms why the simple line "The archaeological report of the excavation makes no mention either of witches or of an immured cat." with a link to the full report, should not be included in the body of the article, after the link to the BBC item. Ghughesarch (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The thing is, this constitutes original research on your part. Never mind the fact that there could be all kinds of reasons something is not mentioned somewhere. What you could do is contact the reporting archeologist and ask her why the BBC report mentioned a cat skeleton while her report did not. That may yield some answers that satisfy your curiosity, at least. Softlavender (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Concur. It's WP:OR to mention that the report didn't mention something (barring some outside source noting that), much less to use that to cast into question BBC reporting --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. Can we have a link to the archaeological report, at least? Ghughesarch (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to, since it doesn't mention Malkin Tower, and linking to it would therefore again constitute WP:OR. -- Softlavender (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * But it's the professional archaeologists' report on the site that is the subject of the BBC's rather more speculative and sensationalist coverage - the latter being allowed without demur into the article. Once again Wikipedia's nitpicking policies appear to trump building a comprehensive and balanced encyclopedia. Simon Entwistle, the "expert on the Pendle Witches" quoted in the BBC report, appears to be a tour guide specialising in "spooky tours" and "ghost walks" http://tophattours.co.uk/ but his speculations can be quoted, while the professional archaeologists report on the excavation is to be excluded from the article. Ghughesarch (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The archeologist in the BBC video, Frank Giecco, who displays the remains of the cat, is the same archeologist who edited the report you linked to: . So there's no jiggery-pokery going on here -- it's the same archeologist involved both in the BBC report and the official report. Since the official report does not mention Malkin Tower, there is no reason to link it, and to do so would be WP:OR. All that the wiki article says is "A potential candidate for the lost Malkin Tower was announced in December 2011, after water engineers unearthed a 17th-century cottage with a mummified cat sealed in the walls, close to Lower Black Moss reservoir near Barley"; exactly what the BBC report says, and no mention of witches. -- Softlavender (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC); edited 18:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * He also says "we've got no evidence to connect this up with the witches, that's just a stab in the dark", which is some distance away from "A potential candidate for the lost Malkin Tower was announced in December 2011" as the WP article puts it before citing the BBC report as evidence. Ghughesarch (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing in what the archeologist (or you) said contradicts the fact that the site is a potential candidate for the Malkin Tower. Malkin = cat; the sentence in the Wikipedia article does not mention witches. If you have a problem with the BBC's framing of or reportage on the story, write a letter to the BBC, as that is where your issue lies, not here. Softlavender (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Ghughesarch has been blocked for three months by a check-user. And since there is consensus that there is no need or cause or reason to include the archeology report, this thread can be archived I think. Softlavender (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Malkin Tower. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091125004231/http://www.lancastercastle.com/html/history/executions.php to http://www.lancastercastle.com/html/history/executions.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)