Talk:Samlesbury witches

A witch or a woman?
The lead tells us that the Samlesbury Witches were three women - but the article then continues to speak of them as 'witches'. I know they're long dead but is it right to refer to acquitted women as witches still? Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've wondered the same thing myself. They're certainly known as the "Samlesbury witches" in the literature, but, as you say, they were acquitted. There's obviously no danger of a libel case—not unless they really were witches I suppose—but it's as well to be as precise as possible. A similar question cropped up with the Pendle witches IIRC, but there the question was even though they were convicted we know that they couldn't really have been witches, or at least they couldn't have been guilty of what they were accused of. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In 'Investigations', should it be summonsed, as it was an official request, or summoned? Also, the 'bennett' book is missing from the Bibliography. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Summoned" is what the sources say, so I'd rather stick with that. I'm not certain there was a legal equivalent to our modern "summons" during the early 17th century. I'll add the Bennett book. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Its only a minor point. The online OED gives lots of examples of 'summons' n applying to legal matters as well as 1290. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll check what the sources say again. Thanks for the hi-res version of the opening page of Potts's book. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A section on public reaction might be of interest - I'm sure that newspaper/pamphlet etc accounts will have been recorded, but were there any Pythonesque moments outside the assizes? Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The truth is that the only record of these events is what Potts wrote in his account of the trial. there's nothing else. It's hard to know how to wrap this up, because as the women went free there's no local witch tourist industry like there is at Pendle. There is though an interesting account of a witches grave nearby, and I've just come across this, an appeal to the Home Secretary to have two of the Pendle witches pardoned. Once I've finished the Trial section I'll give a bit more thought to this article's ending. I think the key may be to focus on the Southworth's and their Catholic connections, but I'm not clear in my own mind yet. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Useable link to the Poole material? Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I actually bought a copy of Poole's excellent book when I was expanding the Pendle witches article. I've plundered it mercilessly, but once the Samlesbury women are acquitted they disappear from the record. I can feel an article about Lancashire witchcraft trials coming on ... there were surprisingly few of them, and even fewer in Cheshire. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Why are we using the word "assizes" in the first paragraph. The word is obviously relatively obscure, and is strange in an potential anatomical way. Wouldn't it be clearer to use "judicial inquest"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.120.145 (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The word "assizes" is by no means obscure, and it wasn't a "judicial inquest", it was a trial. Malleus Fatuorum 20:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

minor thing
I'm not quite clear which 'difference' is being discussed here:

"Potts devotes several pages to a fairly detailed criticism of the evidence presented in Grace Sowerbutt's statement, which gives an insight into the discrepancies during the early 17th century between the "learned" view of witchcraft and the beliefs of the common people, between the Protestant view and the Catholic view"

Is it the difference between the learned and common view, or the religious views? Or are the religious views analogous to the comparison between learned and common? Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to say between the learned vs common view and the Protestant vs Catholic view, not that the two comparisons are analogous, although clearly in this case they are. Can you suggest a clearer wording? --Malleus Fatuorum 16:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * How about "which gives an insight into the discrepancies during the early 17th century between both the "learned" view of witchcraft and the beliefs of the common people, and the Protestant view and the Catholic view" Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Both" is one of those words that almost always gets criticised at FAC as being redundant, and I'm a bit dubious about all of those "ands". Need to think a bit more about this. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Of use?
I just came across this, its hard going but it may provide some insight into the subject of witches, generally. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks to have some good stuff for the later witch trials. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Who is Altham?
This is a featured article and yet in the last paragraph it says "Altham continued with his judicial career until his death in 1617", even though Altham has not been mentioned previously in the article. Who was he? It's just not good enough. Richard75 (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact I've gone and deleted it. Richard75 (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Altham was one of the judges at the trial, as the article says. Have you read the article? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies. Altham was one of the two judges assigned to the Lancaster Assizes for the Lancashire witch trials, but he did not preside over the trial of the Samlesbury witches, so you're right, that ought to be removed. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

POV issues
We have a statement here "King James I, a product of the Scottish Reformation, came to the English throne in 1603..". I've removed it twice, but it has been replaced continually. If we can't remove it until we've got consensus, we'll need to put a POV dispute warning on this article.

The problem with it is that it is 1) an opinion masquerading as fact 2) it implies that the roots of James's witchcraft obsession lie in the Scottish reformation, but it lacks the directness to say that explicitly.

A. We should never say anyone is "the product of x" - whilst undeniably James was greatly influenced by the Reformation there is no simply causality whereby the Reformation produces him. Indeed many scholars would present James as reacting against elements of his experience of the Reformation. So, even if a link is justified in the article, "influenced by" would be better than "product of"

B. In regard to Witchcraft, the connection between King's views and the Reformation is a notable theory or opinion offered by some/many scholars. Pumfrey is cited here, and I believe others have opined similarly. I have no objection to that theory being recorded in the article, simply we can't state it as fact. Psychoanalysis of the influences which create a person is not a factual field. Perhaps the Reformation did have a bearing on the King's action, but we can't categorically state it produced it. In any case, other influences have also been suggested - the Danish influence of his Queen, and the King's visit to Denmark in 1589 (where there were already witch-hunts). See here - not a great source, admittedly.

I suggest either we remove the statement (simplest) - or restate to "It is often/sometimes/has been suggested the Scottish Reformation had a particular influence on King James' interest in witchcraft".

--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've put it back, because it is a statement of fact, not my opinion, and no reasonable person would think otherwise. The Reformation background is particularly important in this trial, and I doubt you will find that any reputable historian sees this trial as anything other than a piece of anti-Catholic propaganda. For the others tried in 1612 there were indeed other imperatives, notably economic, but not in this case. Your assertion that "it implies that the roots of James's witchcraft obsession lie in the Scottish reformation, but it lacks the directness to say that explicitly" is blatantly untrue. The article make no such link at all. That you insist on seeing a connection where none exists is your own problem, nothing to do with this article. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why don't you both hold off on reverting each other while this discussion is going on. Malleus, it seems to me that you should provide a source for this claim, and if most historians would agree with you then it shouldn't be too hard. Nevertheless I agree with Scott that less provocative wording than "product of" is probably in order.Equazcion (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The claim is already sourced, at the end of the following sentence. Which historians are claiming that James wasn't a product of the Scottish Reformation? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt any serious historian would use that phrase. None would dispute the fact he was influenced or strongly influenced.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So you're now calling me a liar? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no comment to make on the wording (but I do trust Malleus' judgement). However in response to 'serious historian', I think its only right that I post this Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm failing to see what the problem is. I'm not disputing the fact that reputable historians see the reformation background as important here. Indeed, let us simply state that that in explicit words. Let us state that many/most historians see the Scottish Reformation as an important influence on James VI's views and actions. I've no problem with that. I do have a problem with the expression "a product of" which implies a direct causality that is never appropriate when speaking of any human psyche. We should record the scholarly consensus - no dispute in that.

Further, why bother mentioning the Scottish Reformation as "producing" James unless it is to link the Reformation with his Witchcraft obsession? That the text implies a link is obvious, hardly "blatantly untrue".--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "A product of" implies no "direct causality", any more than me suggesting that Mick Jagger was a product of the 1960s. That you insist on making a link between the Reformation and James's interest in witchcraft—obsession is far too strong a word—is unfathomable to me. The link is to do with James's attitude towards Catholics, not witches. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you say "Mick Jagger was a product of the 1960s" in an article about a specific scandal, such as his drug use, for instance, then yes, that does imply causality. I'm not sure why you're so attached to that particular wording though, Malleus. Couldn't we just say that he was influenced by the reformation? It seems no one would have a problem with that. Equazcion (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Because that's really both too weak and supposition on your part. James had developed a keen interest in Protestant theology for sure, but how can you or anyone else say that was influenced by the Reformation or not? The wording is precise, clear, and reflects what the source says. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "influenced" sounds fair. Although my problem is also the direct causality implied, but not stated. Scottish Reformation => James VI => his actions/ attitude in these events. Now, indisputably the Reformation was a great influence on James (although not the sole influence), but if the claim is being made that that influence plays a specific part in this witchcraft case (and I grant scholars may think it does), then that should be spelled out and referenced. Not left for the reader to infer.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) You're saying someone can be a product of something, without being influenced by it? I'm currently under the impression that one is simply a more absolute version of the other, which is the problem. It seems too absolute and too pigeonholing. Is there another manner of wording you might also be comfortable with? Equazcion (talk) 19:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, what I'm really saying is that I feel like I'm writing in a different language to everyone else here, or using a different dictionary. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 19:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggested compromise
While I still don't accept there's a problem here that needs to be fixed, Moni3 has come up with a suggested form of words which I would find acceptable: "King James I came to the English throne in 1603. Strongly influenced by Scotland's departure from the Catholic Church in the Scottish Reformation, James became intensely interested in Protestant theology, focusing much of his curiosity on witchcraft."

Would something along those lines satisfy everyone? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm implementing this wording for now, since it seems, at least, to be more of a compromise than what's currently there. Equazcion (talk) 19:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think 'Scotland's departure from the Catholic Church in the Scottish Reformation' could use a bit of help, to some it may appear as though there was a 'Catholic Church in a Scottish Reformation'. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Switched "in" for "during", hope that takes care of it. Equazcion (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have substituted (before seeing this conversation) what I hope is a more acceptable version. James was not greatly interested in most aspects of theology, despite, or because of, having it shoved down his throat since he was a toddler. Johnbod (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not what the source cited says. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Then, I think your source may be wrong, or at least offering only an opinion. James was largely a pragmatist, and reacted negatively against the presbyterian and populist tendencies of the Reformation.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to make such a change then you must find a reliable source to attribute that opinion to. The present source says what the text says now, which is that James had a keen interest in Protestant theology. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Scott I think its only fair that you proffer your own sources in that case. It isn't really fair on Malleus to criticise the article on the basis of sources that he may not have knowledge of, or access to. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I am not disputing that James was influenced by Protestant theology. That's pretty factual. Nor that he had a particular interest in witchcraft. That's factual. It was the wording "product of" which we've now got rid of, I has the problem with. What about simply saying:
 * "Strongly influenced by Scotland's Reformation and its Protestant theology, James became intensely curious about witchcraft."

←I agree it is clumsy phrasing. This is often a problem when you want to include both the accepted terminology and a description for laymen. In some instances it can be solved by describing the event and then adding the term in parenthesis, like "Scotland's departure from the Catholic Church (Scottish Reformation)". Equazcion (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's briefer and incontrovertible.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The important to get across, I think anyway, is that James became interested in the theology of witchcraft; his attitude towards more general Protestant theology doesn't really matter here. So how about "Strongly influenced by Scotland's departure from the Catholic Church during the Scottish Reformation, James became intensely interested in the Protestant theology of witchcraft"? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it particularly a "Protestant theology"? Seems a strange term. Also, the Scottish Church stated it was NOT departing from the Catholic Church, indeed it has always claimed to be a part of the Catholic Church. Granted, that's a Protestant POV, and we should not reflect it, but then neither should we reflect the opposite. If we need to mention the break (and I think referring to Scottish Reformation or indeed to Protestant Theology makes it unnecessary), then we need to find some neutral wording. The usual formula is, I believe, "break with Rome", which neatly avoids the question as to what is or was truly Catholic.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not everyone will be aware of the Scottish Reformation, so I think a few words explaining it are in order. There was clearly a theological difference between Protestant and Catholic views of witchcraft during the 17th century, as the events of the trial demonstrate, and once again the phrase "Protestant theology" exactly mirrors what the source says. Indeed the entire trial was likely an attempt by the Protestant elite to demonstrate to James that they were conscientious in eliminating what was at the time perceived to be a Catholic heresy. Whatever dispute there may be about which is the "truly" Catholic Church, this article is not the place to exercise it. Protestant and Catholic are commonly used terms the meaning of which in the context of this article is perfectly plain. If you want to suggest a different slant to the one presented here then it is up to you to produce reliable sources that back up the changes you propose to make. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Most people do know what the Reformation was. If they don't, that's what hotlinks are for. Put "Protestant" before if you want to reduce doubt. As for the rest, I'm not sure what you want me to provide sources for? I'm very happy to provide multiple sources to show "Scotland's departure from the Catholic Church" isn't neutral terminology, but I think we'd be arguing over silliness when the phase is clumsy and superfluous. On the issue of "protestant theology of witchcraft" I'm not too bothered. It is a strange term, but if we attribute it to the source, there's not really a problem.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Very clumsy, & not exactly accurate. But brackets like that are best avoided & I can't be bothered to discuss further if Malleus has dug his heels in. Johnbod (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is very depressing to have silly arguments like this every time the word "Catholic" crops up in an article. You have been adding unattributed material in a way that makes it look like the present citation supports that new material, which it does not. If you call that "digging my heels in" then I'd remind you of WP:V. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What unattributed material? That James was "Educated by Calvinist tutors after his mother was forced to abdicate in the Scottish Reformation" is Subject-specific common knowledge. Your bizarre comments on Catholic topics I'll ignore as usual. But I'm out of here. Johnbod (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) "Most people"? I very much doubt it, and the explanation is necessary as it introduces the Protestant/Catholic nature of this particular trial. The phrase, like everyone else you've been arguing about, has always been attributed to the source. I'm not aware that the Scottish Reformation was also called the Protestant Scottish Reformation. I must insist that if you want to impose a different viewpoint in this article then you provide reliable sources to support whatever changes you are proposing. Personally I'd have said "Scotland's separation from the Catholic Church", but obviously you'll argue that it was the Catholic Church that separated from Scotland. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing either. I'm simply stating that the Scottish Church claimed to remain Catholic. It isn't my intention to argue either side - that's not what NPOV is about. Anyway, I've found more sourced material, as you asked. I hope to get some more in the days ahead.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Scottish Church claimed to remain Catholic" If you want to claim that, then you don't understand 1. the use of "catholic" and 2. you don't understand history nor theology. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a PhD in theology - I can assure you I do. But, generally it is more helpful to state what your disagreement is and why, rather than say "you are ignorant if you think that".--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't have a PhD in anything but getting everything wrong. You show a complete inability to comprehend basics of religion. I would be surprised if you ever stepped into a university. My disagreement is with you completely fabricating history and then using it to edit war. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Personal abuse is really no substitute for proper discussion.--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Directly fabricating history is not a proper substitute for proper discussion, nor can there be a discussion when people are fabricating history. There was no mention of Calvinism. There was no Calvinism. There was Anglicanism and only Anglicanism. There is no way for you to claim there was Calvinism. Anything to the contrary lacks proof and merit. Your actions were completely inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Accusing people of fabrication is a personal attack, for which you can be blocked. Are you aware that the Scottish Reformation was Calvinist? If you don't think Calvinism was relevant here, then I'd have thought you'd want the reference to the Reformation "producing" James removed. In which case you'd be agreeing with me? Other than you obvious religious ignorance and biased obsession, what are you arguing should be in the text?--Scott Mac (Doc) 08:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Making stuff up is a direct violation of WP:CIVIL along with other policies. You can be banned for that Scott. If you want to claim I am personally attacking you because you are violating every possible ethical standard here, then please feel free. I will be happy to push for your ban for spreading provably false claims that are so ridiculously absurd that you need to justify them with edit warring. The text was 100% fine until you crusaded to destroy it. Your vandalism is completely inappropriate. Just because you feel the need to destroy a well cited article doesn't mean you have the right. James I was a high church Anglican. Everyone knows it. The lines had -nothing- about Calvinism - grammatically, factually, or in any regard. There is no way to make a claim to the contrary. You have no excuse for your vandalistic edit warring. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

don't worry, Scott -- Ottava does this all the time. You should WP:SHUN her and try to get on with the article in spite of the backgroud noise. Experts are scum, you know ;) --dab (𒁳) 14:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, as per dbachmann's record, that is just proof that Scott is 100% wrong. And I find it cute how he claims I treat experts as scum when, gasp!, I happen to be one with most people knowing my credentials and background. Hell, you can't even get that right. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Non sequitor
This recent change to the beginning of the Background section makes no sense whatsoever: "The persecution of witches was not a particularly Calvinist phenomenon, its background lying in Innocent VIII's Maleus Maleficarum, and Catholic France having preceded Scotland in witch hunting.[8] Yet, King James I, who came to the English throne from Scotland in 1603, brought with him a particular interest in the theology of witchcraft."

What has Calvinism got to do with anything? Why would anyone have supposed that the prosecution of witches was a particularly Calvinist phenomenon anyway? Jus seems like a poorly executed ruse to excise any mention of the Scottish Reformation. If changes like this one continue then I will be taking this article to FAR. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not getting this. You seem intent to connect the Scottish Reformation in particular and Protestant theology in general to the witchcraft persecutions. That, I think gives a slanted view, and so (as demanded) I've produced a good source that suggests a wider background. I'm not trying to excise anything - and I'm not going to stoop to answer the "ruse" accusation. (See AGF). My wording may be poor, so let's try to improve.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Calvinism was a dissenter form of Protestantism. What was practiced by the court was High Church Anglicanism. They are -very- different, and Calvinists were claiming that the High Church Anglicans were in line with the Pope and worshippers of Satan. Scott, your comments above suggest a severe misunderstanding of the subject. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I think you've misunderstood me. The text of this article states that the "Background" is James VI and that the significant influence on him is his Scottish Reformation (i.e. Calvinist) roots. I am merely trying to widen out the background to balance that that perception, because witch-hunting is indeed a wider European phenomena, and nor particularly a product of the Scottish Reformation. As I say, my material needed reworded, but removing it leaves the article somewhat biased.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is -nothing- and I mean -nothing- to suggest that he was Calvinist or that there is -any- mention of Calvin in this edit. Don't you -dare- claim otherwise, because not only would that mean that you lack all understanding of the English language, but that you are making up some of the most absurd claims I've ever seen. I am tired of people who come to a page, completely make up things, and start edit warring. Scott, you are wrong. Your interpretation isn't even close. James was an Anglican. He was -not- a Calvinist. He followed Luther. He made sure that the Geneva Bible was banned from England. He hunted down Puritans. How dare you claim that the article has -any- claim that he was a Calvinist. That is some of the most disgusting historical revisionism I have seen, and I have seen quite a few people as of late rewriting history. As a member of the defunct WikiProject Anglican and a writer and contributor to some of the most important pages on Anglicanism here on Wikipedia, I am 100% offended by your claims as they show not only bigotry, but complete ignorance of the subject. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ottava, is it possible that you are actually unaware that the Church of Scotland, of which James was a wholly compliant member until his late 30s, was and is unabashedly Calvinist? He was given a rigorously Calvinist upbringing, but once King of England indeed showed no inclination at all to upset the Elizabethan settlement. Like all subsequent English monarchs, he worshipped with the Church of Scotland when there (in his case never, after he left Scotland, as he never went back), and the Church of England when in England, & set the pattern of not worrying himself at all about any contradictions that might suggest as to his personal theological positions. Johnbod (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * John, do you not understand history? The were very much High Church until the purging of high church presbyters. If you knew -anything- about Calvinism, there is -no- High Church in Calvinism. James was 100% high church. To claim otherwise would be one of the most ridiculous acts possible. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Clerical error in the "Background" section, first sentence
I suggest to delete "already" once.Chilrreh (talk) 12:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. Thanks for pointing out the error.   Mae din \talk 16:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

History lesson
Because there are two people and a cheerleader who show 100% ignorance about James the First -

John Knox was a Calvinist. In 1560, the Scots adopted some of Knox's Calvinistic ideas. Was it all? No. Was it most? No. Was it enough to distinguish themselves from the Papacy? Yes. Who appointed Bishops? The Crown. What does that mean? They were governed in the Anglican system. What does that mean? High Church.

But isn't High Church 100% opposite of the small council based presbyter government that Calvin said was needed? Yes, it is. But didn't someone before claim they were Calvinist? Well, that is like claiming someone who has big ears is an elephant - if it is meant as a joke, sure, it is funny. However, when people start claiming that it is true, well, they have a problem.

But what about Andrew Melville when he came later? Well, Marvell didn't gain influence until after 1680. But why would that matter? Well, since James was born in 1566, the two were contemporaries.

Didn't Melville help alter the Church of Scotland into a Presbyterian and Calvinistic system? Oh, he would later, but not at the time. After Melville attacked James and James's High Church beliefs, James told him "no bishop, no king". Now, James wanted to be king. He also wanted to be King of Scotland. Was he going to let some Calvinistic wannabe push him around and undermine his rule? Hell no. He was High Church and he knew exactly the type of power High Church was.

So class, now that you know a little bit about history, you can now see that 1. the "Church of Scotland" didn't become "Calvinist" until after James the First became king, 2. that James the First was very High Church, and 3. claims to the other wise are so completely absurd that only a troll who wants nothing more than to destroy this encyclopedia would completely rewrite some of the most discussed history in English theological politics. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. James the First had Melville and his allies arrested in 1606 for preaching heresy against the Crown's rule. That little bit of information alone contradicts any claim that James was a Calvinist instead of a High Church Anglican. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Patronising git. What you say is partially right, partially crap, but utterly irrelevant. You do realise, that I was arguing against saying that James was a "product" of Knox and the Reformation of 1560, as many of James ideas were a reaction against the Calvinism of Knox et al. James was a complex character, and suggesting he was this or that, should not be the concern of this article at all. We should stick to the facts that he wrote a book on witchcraft, and was involved in witchcraft trials in Scotland in the 1590s and we should leave aside trying to analyse what influenced him, as that's a wider question and open to some interpretations. So, get down from your Anglican pulpit please.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Scott, I can provide you libraries that verify what I've said. But here is the thing, the fact that you would -attempt- to deny it would justify blocking you for major POV problems. What you were claiming was that the Scottish Reformation was Calvinistic. They did not -become- Calvinistic until after James the First. Your timing is to claim something happened 60 years before it did. That is utterly absurd. You might as well claim that the Vietnam war influenced World War I. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Scottish Reformation was certainly Calvinist, but that's hardly relevant to this article.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, no. It was not. I just demonstrated that above. The Scottish Church did not become "Calvinist" until much, much later than when James grew up in it. It still was under the control of the Crown and the Bishop system didn't have any serious attacks until -after- the witch trials. I think you need to pick up a few books on the events leading up to the Bishops' Wars, which trace back to the 1630s. The first time there was any serious challenge to Anglicanism was in 1618. That still puts it 7 years -after- the Witch Trials, making your claims laughably impossible. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. Sorry, I'm unwatching. I'll be trolled no longer.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The only trolling here was you, and when you were confronted with indisputable proof of what events happened in what order, you left instead of admitting that you were wrong. That is the action of a troll. If you were an academic, you would have known that the timing would be impossible for you to make your claims, and, when confronted with it, you would have apologized. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Scott, it's just as well you are unwatching (like I believe that will happen!) as you seem to have forgotten about the basic tenet of Wikipedia, ie it's not about truth, it's not about who's right or wrong. It's about verifiability. The expression you took exception to, "product of", was a direct quote from a reliable source. That makes it verifiable. Your comments are as a result of your alleged PhD education and what you think you know thereby making it original research in Wikipedia terms. Though ultimately who gives a shit whether he was a Calvin Klein fan or Calvinistic, the article is about the Samlesbury Witches, it isn't about either James or you and what you think you know. -- Web H  amster  20:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ottava, I only have limited space in my brain and you've just filled a bit up with stuff I didn't need to know ;) Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

John Southworth (martyr) and son
John Southworth (martyr) was born in 1592, and in the article, it is written that his eldest son John was married in 1598. Six years between these events is too short.

Cantons-de-l&#39;Est (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The ODNB confirms this, and also mentions nothing about children or a marriage. Parrot of Doom 09:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That passage needs to be removed from the article. It's a different John Southworth. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 10:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That was inserted back in May! You need eyes in the back of your head in this place. Thanks for removing it. Malleus Fatuorum 13:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Modern interpretation
In describing the differences between the English and the continental methods of prosecuting witches, it should be noted that torture was commonly used in Europe while interrogating suspects, but not in England.In fact, this was reportedly something of a disappointment to James when he came south to assume the crown and found that he could not observe torturings, which were done in Scotland, following the Danish example which James saw on a visit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.82.121.74 (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * HA! Are you kidding? Henry VIII, Mary, and Elizabeth's rackmasters might have something to say about that (if they were alive.) HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * While it's strictly true to say that torture was at that time illegal in England (unless sanctioned by the king), I'd suggest that you read Matthew Hopkins and consider whether practices such as sleep deprivation are torture. Malleus Fatuorum 22:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Reference errors
Why are only citations 6 and 14 for Hasted (1933) throwing up errors? The "ps=" parameter in the sfnp template seems to be optional, so I don't see how its omission can produce an error like this. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Samlesbury witches. 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/20071213054850/http://www.lancastercastle.com/html/people/tour.php?id=43 to http://www.lancastercastle.com/html/people/tour.php?id=43

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) 17:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)