Talk:The Burning Times/Archive 1

Older
"Catholics have taken exception to statements of the film like "it took the Church two hundred years of terror and death to transform the image of paganism into devil worship, and folk culture into heresy" depicting the movie as propaganda intended to represent the Christian Church as "a wicked, patriarchal, misogynist institution".


 * This statement is from a Catholic viewpoint only and no alternate viewpoint is discussed.


 * Well, if it is their viewpoint it should be included here. What alternate viewpoints do you suggest? Much of stories about 'the burning times' in history are based on false information. I think that sadly enough this movie is a product of these false viewpoints by pagans and wiccans. ( see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_times#The_Burning_Times ) --Soyweiser 10:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"People had previously relied on the charity provided by the monasteries; once these were dissolved in England, there were a lot more elderly beggars. People felt guilty for not helping them, so when the old women went away mumbling, they assumed that they had been bewitched when they got psychosomatic symptoms resulting from their feelings of guilt."


 * This is not factual information. It insinuates one psychologically-evaluated conclusion (and by whom?)  for what should be a broad spectrum of factual reasons. It was not only "elderly beggars" that were persecuted but many young mothers and daughters.

Section-NPOV and WP:NOR
Howdy. I added the Original Resarch tag to the article. I am *not* opposed to including sourced statements regarding the opinions and historical references here, but they are not presented in an encyclopedic style and do not cite sources. I'd like to see the article better crafted, and have added citation requests to some sections, though the whole article needs a rewrite to conform to Wikipedia policies. I changed the section title from "The Facts" to something more appropriate here. It is not enough to just say "It's a fact!" to include information in Wikipedia. Statements must be sourced to reputable, verifiable sources to merit inclusion. I look forward to working constructively with other editors to make this happen. Thanks. --NightMonkey 22:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree: this is the article about the movie, whatever its merits. Instead it discusses witch-hunts in general; they should be discussed at their proper article, and only facts relevant to the discussion of the movie should be brought up here. dab (&#5839;) 19:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV-check template
I notice the article was tagged for possible POV in the past, based on a section that has been removed from the article. I just restored the template because I think the current description of the movie is biased. In essence, it is an essay on why the movie is inaccurate. I haven't seen it, but it sounds like it needs critiquing very badly. I am not asking for any of it to go. Even so, I think it needs more neutral information in the lead: who made it, how long it is, and a summary of the movie itself. Maybe some context. Maestlin 01:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * well, the criticism is taken from the external links. It isn't a violation of NPOV to portray a crappy movie as crappy. In fact, I suppose it would be pov to portray it as anything else. Lacking parameters like those you ask for do not call for NPOV but rather for expand. dab (&#5839;) 17:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is definitely a violation of NPOV to portray a movie as "crappy", regardless of how crappy you think it is. Pfalstad 21:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * no, it would be a violation of encyclopedic tone, which is why you won't catch me using the term in article space, obviously. We would require to point out why it is deficient in quality (vulgarly known as 'crappy'). dab (&#5839;) 12:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it seems that you are determined to keep your POV in this article, reverting any attempt to make it more balanced. Well, I'm not going to fight you on it, at least not without help...  Pfalstad 14:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * this isn't "my pov". I haven't even seen the film. If it is true (I didn't check, our source is the review) that the film talks of 9 million deaths, I am merely pointing out the obvious, that this is indefensible nonsense, about 100 times the number assumed by scholars (that is, people who have actually studied the question). dab (𒁳) 14:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Saying that it is indefensible nonsense does not make it so. You must supply references for your statements. BTW the entry is in error about one fact: the movie was a Canadian production.
 * yeah yeah, see witch trials for your references, 9 million deaths my backside. dab (𒁳) 20:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of "needs infobox" tag
This article has had its infobox tag removed by a cleanup using AWB. Any concerns please leave me a message at my talk page. RWardy 20:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thea Jensen misquoted in the article
I have the documentary on DVD and have just checked it. Thea Jensen does NOT say that nine million women were killed. She says that numbers are hard to come by. She then says that the high number often cited is nine million ''over a period of 300+ years". That would work out to about 30,000 people per year, which is a perfectly believable number - especially since most of the accused who died probably perished from disease and the stress of torture, rather than from actual execution.

A figure of 100,000 over 300 years would be about 330 people a year, which seems a very low number.

In any case, whatever the number was, it serves no scholarly purpose to criticise one academic's point of view on the basis of something she did *not* say.

76.126.3.38 (talk) 08:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Need disambiguation
This page says it's about the film. There needs to be a separate page for the event. The phrase "The Burning Times" did not originate with the film. Sheherazahde (talk) 06:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See Witch trials in Early Modern Europe. If you think that information should be split to form a new article, raise the issue there. Mind  matrix  14:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

disambiguation is at burning times. --dab (𒁳) 16:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Article remains anti-feminist in tone - POV is not Neutral.
This article is heavily slanted to discrediting the film, and continues to perpetuate the "9 million" myth. As the contributor below states, Jensen never states in the film that 9 million died;

That "Trier is in Germany" is stated to be one of the reasons why this film is inaccurate. I cannot reference the film to determine a precise "when" in history, but throughout the nearly 3300 year history of Trier, it has mostly NOT been in Germany - it was a kingdom unto itself until Roman control from sometime in the first century AD until the Franks took it over for four hundred years or so (459-870 AD), and in French control from 1797-1815. So it kind of depends on "when" we're talking about.

Article needs to be cleaned up so that it is NPOV and unbiased towards discrediting the film in its entirety.

Katiemur (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Fiction
Xx236 (talk) 12:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Men were also persecuted.
 * Wiches were persecuted by non-Catholic churches.